THE  AUDIENCIA  IN  THE 
SPANISH  COLONIES 


CHARLES  HENRY  CUNNINGHAM 


c5~C 

n  t 


THE   AUrilNCI/*    IN   TRK   BPANIFH   COT.OHIES 

RII   illustrated  by 
THE   AUDIKNCI*    OF  M/NILA    (1F87-1898J 


with  a  bibliography  of  the  printed  and 
manuscript  sources  consulted. 


pectfully  submitted  in  partial  satisfaction  of  the  renuir 
of  the  r«pree  of  Eoctor  of  Phildsophy. 

University  of  California. 
:-rh  1915. 


O/M-*_*~  nr- 

. 


THE  AUDIENCIA   IN   THE 
SPANISH  COLONIES 


A  THESIS  ACCEPTED  IN  PAETIAL  SATISFACTION  OF 
THE  EEQUIEEMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 
AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


BY 


CHARLES  HENRY  CUNNINGHAM 


1915 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
PUBLICATIONS   IN    HISTORY 


H.  AIORSE  STEPHENS        HERBERT  E.  BOLTON 

EDITORS 


VOLUME  IX 


THE   AUDIENCIA  IN   THE   SPANISH 
COLONIES 

AS    ILLUSTRATED    BY    THE 

AUDIENCIA  OF  MANILA 

(1583-1800) 


BY 
CHARLES  HENRY  CUNNINGHAM,  Ph.D. 

Adjunct  Professor  of  History  in  the  University  of  Texas 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PR^SS     ',  „  J  '„   .' 

BERKELEY 

1919 


PREFACE 

It  seems  proper  to  say  at  the  outset  that  a  general  study  of 
the  Spanish  colonial  system  convinced  me  of  the  need  of  an 
extended  investigation  of  the  audiencia,  which  was  the  central 
institution  in  the  colonies.  It  was,  however,  the  circumstance 
of  my  being  situated  in  Manila  for  some  years  and  thus  having 
at  my  disposal  the  original  documents  bearing  upon  the  history 
of  the  audiencia  which  was  situated  there  that  led  me  to  study 
this  particular  tribunal.  At  first  sight  it  may  appear  that  some 
thing  of  direct  applicability  to  Spanish-American  conditions, 
which  would  have  been  gained  by  the  study  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Mexico,  or  Guadalajara,  or  Lima,  has  thus  been  lost.  Neverthe 
less,  if  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  the  audiencia  system  was  common 
to  all  the  Spanish  colonies,  and  that  the  laws  by  which  it  was 
constituted  and  regulated  applied  to  the  different  political  divi 
sions  of  America  as  to  the  Philippines,  the  assumption  will  not 
seem  wholly  unjustified  that  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  may  be 
taken  as  a  typical  legal  and  political  institution. 

A  large  part  of  the  time  expended  in  collecting  the  materials 
upon  which  this  book  is  based  was  spent  in  the  various  deposi 
tories  in  Manila.  The  most  notable  group  of  documents  there 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Philippines  Library,  and  it  is  with  pleasure 
that  I  express  here  my  obligations  to  Dr.  James  Alexander 
Robertson,  the  librarian ;  for  not  only  did  Dr.  Robertson  place 
at  my  disposal  all  the  resources  of  the  library,  but  he  con 
tributed  generously  from  his  adequate  knowledge  of  Philippine 
history  and  afforded  continual  inspiration  during  the  course  of 
my  labors  in  Manila.  I  am  also  deeply  conscious  of  the  assist 
ance  so  kindly  rendered  by  Don  Manuel  Artigas,  chief  of  the 
Division  of  Filipiniana,  and  by  Don  Manuel  Yriarte  of  the 
Philippine  Archive. 


438857 


Preface 

In  addition  to  research  in  the  Philippines  Library,  the  Philip 
pine  Archive,  and  the  Audiencia  Records  in  Manila  approxi 
mately  three  years  have  been  spent  in  the  archives  of  Spain. 
The  main  centre  of  my  work,  of  course,  has  been  the  Archive  of 
the  Indies  at  Seville,  where  I  was  given  free  access  to  all  the 
available  materials,  and  every  facility  was  extended  to  me  by 
the  chief  of  the  archive,  Don  Pedro  Torres  Lanzas,  and  by  his 
obliging  assistants.  I  am  also  indebted  for  many  courtesies  to 
Don  Miguel  Gomez  de  Campillo  of  the  National  Historical 
Archive  at  Madrid,  and  to  Don  Juan  Montero,  chief  of  the 
archive  at  Simancas. 

The  object  of  this  prefatory  note  would  not  be  achieved  if  I 
failed  to  express  adequately  my  acknowledgment  to  my  teacher 
and  friend  Professor  Frederick  J.  Teggart,  of  the  University  of 
California.  His  inspiration  led  me  to  appreciate  the  import 
ance  of  institutional  studies;  his  continued  encouragement  has 
helped  me  over  the  hard  places  in  the  work ;  and  I  am  conscious 
now  of  the  extent  to  which  he  has  sought,  by  vigilant  criticism, 
to  guard  me  against  precipitateness.  I  am  indebted  to  Professor 
Herbert  Bolton  for  valuable  aid  and  for  advice  in  the  final  pre 
sentation  of  the  manuscript ;  to  Dr.  Charles  Wilson  Hackett  for  a 
systematic  revision  of  the  Bibliography  and  of  the  footnotes; 
to  Professor  E.  C.  Barker  for  advice  and  assistance ;  to  Pro 
fessor  W.  R.  Shepherd  and  Professor  Francis  S.  Philbrick 
for  their  criticism  of  portions  of  this  book ;  and  to  Messrs.  A.  H. 
Allen  and  Morse  A.  Cartwright  of  the  University  of  California 
Press  for  their  many  manifestations  of  courtesy  and  patience 
in  the  supervision  of  its  publication.  To  Professor  H.  Morse 
Stephens  of  the  University  of  California  and  to  the  generous 
order  of  the  Native  Sons  of  the  Golden  West  I  am  indebted  for 
the  rare  opportunity  of  two  years  of  foreign  residence  and 
research  in  the  various  archives  of  Spain. 

Finally,  my  greatest  indebtedness  is  to  my  wife,  who  has 

vi 


Preface 

cheerfully  given  up  the  pleasures  and  conveniences  of  life 
among  friends  in  home  surroundings  to  accompany  me  to  less 
pleasant  places,  in  order  that  I  might  succeed  in  the  work  which 
I  have  undertaken. 

CHARLES  H.  CUNNINGHAM. 

University  of  Texas,  Austin,  Texas, 
March  1,  1918. 


vii 


CONTENTS 

PAGES 

PREFACE  ..............................................................................................................  v-vii 


INTRODUCTION 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  AUDIENCIAS  OF  THE  SPANISH  COLONIES  ..............................................  8-31  —  . 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA  OF  MANILA  (1583-1598)  ......  32-82 

CHAPTER  III 
THE  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA  ........................................  83-120    - 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA:    THE  RESIDENCTA  ......  121-159    • 

CHAPTER  V 
THE    SEMI-JUDICIAL    AND    ADMINISTRATIVE    FUNCTIONS    OF    THE 

AUDIENCIA    ..............................................................................................  160-192  < 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  GOVERNOR:    GENERAL  RELATIONS  ................  193-225 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE   AUDIENCIA   AND    THE    GOVERNOR:     THE    MILITARY    JURISDIC 

TION  ..........................................................................................................  226-258 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  GOVERNOR:    CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION....  259-303 

CHAPTER  IX 
THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  GOVERNOR:    THE  AD  INTERIM  RULE  ..........  304-361 

CHAPTER  X 
THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  CHURCH:    THE  ROYAL  PATRONAGE  ............  362-409 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  CHURCH:     THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  JURIS 

DICTION   ....................................................................................................  410—444 

BIBLIOGRAPHY   ...................................  .  ..........................................................  445-462 

INDEX  ....463-479 


INTRODUCTION 

The  audiencia  was  primarily  a  judicial  tribunal.  It  has 
been  considered  almost  entirely  as  such  by  these  modern  his 
torical  writers  who  have  referred  to  it  in  passing.  Its  legislative, 
administrative,  executive,  and  ecclesiastical  functions  have  re 
ceived  little  attention.  This  may  be  owing  to  the  fact  that 
little  or  no  documentary  study  of  the  audiencia  has  heretofore 
been  made.  A  great  deal  of  attention  has  been  devoted  in  this 
book  to  the  non-judicial  functions  of  the  audiencia.  A  chapter 
has  been  given,  indeed,  to  its  purely  judicial  activities,  but  the 
chief  purpose  of  this  investigation  has  been  to  show  that  the 
audiencia  was  more  than  a  court  of  justice,  and  to  bring  out 
its  governmental  and  ecclesiastical  functions. 

This  study  will  be  confined,  chronologically,  to  the  period 
extending  from  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  audiencia,  at  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth. 
This  limitation  is  advisable,  first,  because  the  vastness  of  the 
subject  requires  it,  and  second,  because  the  audiencia  became 
more  concerned  with  judicial  and  less  with  administrative, 
political,  and  economic  affairs  through  the  constitutional 
changes  which  were  made  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  and  at 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  centuries.  The  audiencia"  thus 
loses  its  interest,  from  our  present  viewpoint,  after  the  eighteenth 
century.  Again,  it  may  be  said  that  owing  to  the  loss  of  colonies 
by  Spain  in  the  early  nineteenth  century,  and  the  general 
anarchy  that  prevailed  after  1810,  a  continuation  of  an  intensive 
study  beyond  that  period  would  be  without  value  because  its 
subject-matter  would  be  no  longer  characteristic. 

In  assuming  that  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  was  typical  of  all 
the  audiencias  in  the  Spanish  colonial  system,  it  is  not  claimed 
that  the  tribunal  in  the  Philippines  was  identical  in  every 


2  Introduction 

function  and  detail  with  those  of  the  other  colonies  of  Spain. 
It  is  no  doubt  true  that  local  conditions  brought  about  pro 
nounced  differences  and  that  each  audiencia  had  its  own  local 
characteristics  and  powers,  which  differed  from  those  of  the 
others.  The  subject  is  so  vast,  however,  and  the  research 
required  for  a  comparative  study  of  all  these  institutions  would 
be  so  extensive  that  it  would  occupy  more  than  a  lifetime  to 
complete  it. 

The  main  interest  of  this  investigation  does  not  lie  in  the 
organization,  the  scope,  nature,  or  detailed  powers  of  the  audi 
encia  as  an  institution  of  the  Philippines,  but  in  its  larger 
relation  to  the  general  field  of  Spanish  colonial  history  and 
government.  It  applies  to  the  entire  field  of  Spanish  colonial 
administration.  It  is  related  to  the  government  of  Peru,  New 
Spain,  Cuba,  and  other  colonies  wherein  there  were  audiencias, 
and  where  functions  similar  to  those  of  the  Manila  tribunal 
were  exercised.  The  establishment  of  all  these  audiencias  was 
part  of  the  same  movement,  and  the  act  of  their  creation  was 
the  product  of  experience  gained  in  Spain  through  efforts  at  cen 
tralization  there.  The  audiencias  of  the  colonies  were  alike  depen 
dent  on  the  Council  of  the  Indies;  common  institutions  and 
departments  of  government  existed  in  Spain  for  the  control  and 
regulation  of  the  tribunals  of  the  colonies.  All  were  of  equal 
judicial  rank  before  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  cases  ap 
pealed  to  the  latter  from  the  several  audiencias  were  treated  in 
the  same  manner  and  considered  as  having  equal  rank  and  im 
portance.  The  general  powers  and  attributes  of  these  audiencias 
were  prescribed  in  the  same  code,  the  Recopilacion,  and  gen 
eral  laws  and  ccdulas  of  reform  were  expedited  from  time  to 
time  and  sent  to  the  tribunals  of  all  the  colonies.  Such  is  the 
basis,  therefore,  of  the  claim  that  this  is  in  reality  a  study  of 
the  audiencia  as  an  institution,  illustrated  particularly  by  the 
history  of  that  of  the  Philippines. 

A  study  of  the  audiencia  of  any  colony  is  concerned  with  all 


Introduction  3 

of  the  problems  that  came  up  in  its  life — with  legal,  polit 
ical,  ecclesiastical,  and  social  conditions.  It  will  be  seen  that 
the  audiencia  was  the  one  tribunal  which  regulated,  checked, 
and  often  controlled  both  church  and  state  in  the  colonies;  it 
represented  the  king,  and  its  duty  was  to  see  that  the  royal 
commands  were  obeyed ;  it  was  the  royal  audiencia.  Isolated  as 
were  the  officials  of  the  Philippines,  in  those  distant  seas,  re 
moved  from  any  but  the  most  remote  influence  of  the  home  gov 
ernment,  beset  on  all  sides  by  hostile  forces,  and  dependent  on 
themselves  alone,  conditions  there  present  an  especially  favorable 
field  wherein  to  note  the  ultimate  possibilities  of  the  authority  of 
the  audiencia.  It  is  the  design  of  this  treatise  to  examine  condi 
tions  in  the  Philippines  under  the  aspects  noted,  and  to  assign 
them  their  place  in  the  history  of  Spanish  colonization.  The 
investigation  of  what  was,  beyond  doubt,  the  most  important 
and  many-sided  institution  in  the  Spanish  administration  of  the 
Philippines  provides  a  means  of  approach  to  that  larger  field 
of  study. 

A  survey  of  the  Spanish  colonial  system  or  a  study  of  the 
government  of  any  one  colony  will  reveal  the  fact  that  political 
life  and  power  there  were  vested  chiefly  in  three  institutions. 
Upon  these  the  peace,  prosperity  and  security  of  each  colony 
largely  depended.  These  institutions  were  the  audiencia,  the 
office  of  viceroy,  or  captain-general,  and  the  church.  By  means 
of  the  two  former  the  royal  interests  in  the  colony  were  repre 
sented,  and  through  the  latter  one  of  the  chief  aims  of  Spain's 
colonial  system  was  effected,  namely,  the  conversion  of  infidels 
and  the  subsequent  care  of  their  souls  The  church  added  to  its 
own  power  in  various  ways.  No  study  of  Spanish  colonial  insti 
tutions  would  be  complete  which  failed  to  consider  the  church 
as  a  political  power.  It  is  to  a  consideration  of  these  three  chief 
factors  of  colonial  government,  and  their  interrelation,  that  this 
study  will  be  dedicated.  After  a  review  of  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  we 


4  Introduction 

shall  devote  ourselves  to  a  detailed  study  of  the  audiencia  itself. 
We  shall  first  notice  the  audiencia 's  judicial  functions  as  a  court 
of  ordinary  justice  and  secondarily  as  a  court  of  residencies. 
The  second  part  of  this  section  will  be  concerned  with  the  semi- 
judicial  and  administrative  functions  of  the  audiencia. 

The  title  of  captain-general  was  primarily  of  military  signifi 
cance,  and  it  was  exercised  alike  by  viceroys  and  governors; 
the  official  designation  of  the  former  being  "my  viceroy  and 
captain-general ' '  and  that  of  the  latter  being  ' '  my  governor  and 
captain-general."  Not  all  governors  were  captains-general. 

The  viceroys  in  the  larger  divisions  and  the  captains-general 
in  the  smaller  ones  represented  the  king  as  head  of  the  church 
and  state  in  their  several  districts.  Because  these  officials  were  so 
powerful  and  their  duties  so  multitudinous,  they  came  into  con 
tact  with  every  department  of  the  government.  The  audiencias 
came  into  relation  with  these  officials  most  frequently.  It  is 
therefore  necessary  to  study  the  governor  and  captain-general 
first  from  the  viewpoint  of  his  position  as  chief  executive  of  the 
colony  and  as  representative  of  the  king.  The  frequency  of  their 
relations  and  the  identity  of  their  spheres  of  authority  suggest 
that  we  give  attention  to  the  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  of  the  gov 
ernor  and  audiencia ;  finally,  we  shall  take  note  of  the  occasions 
on  which  the  audiencia  assumed  the  government  on  the  event  of 
a  vacancy,  noticing  the  laws  authorizing  such  action  and  the 
principles  underlying  them. 

The  importance  of  the  church  in  the  Spanish  colonial  system 
has  already  been  alluded  to.  The  extent  of  its  power  and  the 
frequency  and  importance  of  its  relations  with  the  audiencia 
demand  considerable  attention.  After  studying  the  general 
phases  of  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the  church,  we  shall 
see  that  the  tribunal  exercised  ecclesiastical  authority  of  a  very 
pronounced  character.  This  power  it  derived  from  two  sources : 
first,  from  the  authority  that  was  entrusted  to  it  by  virtue  of-  the 
royal  patronage ;  second,  from  its  status  as  a  court  of  justice 


Introduction  5 

with  jurisdiction  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  similar  to  that  which 
it  had  as  an  ordinary  tribunal  of  justice.  The  above  is  an  out 
line  of  the  plan  of  this  book. 

That  which  impresses  the  modern  student  most  with  regard 
to  Spanish  administrative  machinery  was  its  failure  to  effect 
deliberately  the  division  of  powers  which,  with  our  traditions, 
we  consider  essential  to  a  well-balanced  government.  The  terms 
"executive"  and  "judicial"  are  employed  in  this  book,  as  they 
were  in  Spain's  colonies,  to  designate  functions  rather  than  de 
partments.  The  viceroy,  as  president  of  the  audiencia,  had  cog 
nizance  of  certain  judicial  matters,  and  more  or  less  participa 
tion  in  them,  though  he  was  forbidden  to  act  as  judge,  especially 
over  affairs  in  which  he  had  already  officiated  as  executive.  The 
audiencia  likewise  shared  many  executive  functions,  yet  it  was 
not  judge  of  its  own  acts,  for  when  judgment  was  passed  on 
the  administrative  acts  or  judicial  pronouncements  of  an  oidor, 
either  on  appeal  or  by  review  of  sentence,  that  magistrate  was 
expected  to  retire,  or  to  be  occupied  with  some  other  case.  So, 
while  there  was  no  judicial  department  with  solely  judicial 
functions,  or  a  legislative  or  executive  department,  as  they  are 
known  in  some  modern  states,  there  existed  certain  interrelations 
which  did  not  entirely  result  in  confusion,  as  one  might  suppose. 
On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  often  noted  that  as  a  resultant  of  this 
system,  men  and  acts  of  an  exceedingly  well-balanced  and  states 
manlike  character  were  produced.  We  shall  see,  moreover,  that 
they  were  far  from  meriting  the  disapprobation  that  is  fre 
quently  heaped  upon  so-called  Spanish  governmental  incapacity. 

The  defects  which  appear  so  conspicuous  in  Spanish  admin 
istration  were  largely  due  to  the  extremely  methodical  turn  of 
the  Spanish  official  mind,  the  vastness  of  the  empire  which  was 
to  be  governed,  and  the  lack  of  facilities  available  for  efficient 
administration.  It  was  a  government  of  expcdientes,  literally  a 
government  on  paper.  All  acts,  estimates,  budgets,  and  plans 
had  to  be  drafted  and  written  out,  duplicates  and  triplicates  of 


6  Introduction 

each  report  had  to  be  made,  advice  had  to  be  taken,  and  opin 
ions  rendered,  whether  the  matter  went  any  further  than  the 
theoretical  stage  or  not.  We  do  much  the  same  in  our  modern 
age,  but  inventions  and  labor-saving  devices  have  fortunately 
spared  us  much  of  the  time  and  effort  which  a  few  centuries  ago 
had  to  be  expended  to  accomplish  proportionate  results.  The 
apparent  unwieldiness  of  the  Spanish  colonial  empire  would 
have  been  materially  reduced  by  the  use  of  the  telegraph,  cable, 
steamship,  typewriter  and  carbon-paper. 

An  effort  has  been  made  that  this  should  be  something  more 
than  a  theoretical  dissertation.  A  knowledge  that  certain  laws 
were  promulgated  is  only  half  of  what  is  necessary  in  a  study 
of  this  character.  It  is  imperative  to  understand  how  these  laws 
were  applied,  and  whether  they  were  efficiently  and  effectively 
carried  out.  Every  phase  of  the  audiencia 's  history  has,  there 
fore,  been  illustrated  wherever  possible  with  one  or  more  con 
crete  cases,  taken  from  actual  practice.  Many  of  these  illustra 
tions  are  comparatively  insignificant  by  themselves,  involving 
persons  of  no  historical  importance  and  concerning  matters  of  a 
seemingly  trivial  nature.  Nevertheless,  it  has  been  necessary  to 
consider  these  matters  carefully  because  they  were  typical  and 
true  to  actual  conditions,  and  because  they  reveal  better  than 
anything  else  could  the  affairs  which  were  the  concern  of  the 
audiencia,  showing  the  part  played  by  the  tribunal  in  the  life 
of  the  colony. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work  due  deference  has  been 
paid  to  the  standard  authorities  usually  cited  by  writers  of 
Spanish-American  history.  So  little  attention  has  been  given 
by  students  of  Spanish  colonial  history  to  the  audiencia 
as  an  institution,  however,  that  the  present  writer  has  been 
obliged  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  the  hitherto  untouched 
documentary  material  in  Spain  and  the  Philippines,  and  to 
place  almost  his  sole  reliance  upon  it.  This  material  consists 
of  laws,  cedulas,  royal  orders,  ordinances,  correspondence,  and 


Introduction  1 

lastly,  but  most  important,  records  of  cases  and  actual  happen 
ings  in  the  form  of  letters,  memorials,  reports,  complaints  and 
contemporary  accounts.  These  latter  convey,  as  nothing  else 
can,  an  idea  of  how  the  laws  were  carried  out,  what  was  their 
effect,  what  part  the  audiencia  played  in  the  interpretation  and 
execution  of  the  law,  and  the  relations  of  the  tribunal  to  the 
other  authorities  and  institutions  of  government.  Of  this  sort 
of  material  there  is  much,  and  in  its  light  the  history  of  the 
Spanish  colonies  and  of  their  institutions  yet  remains  to  be 
written. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  AUDIENCIAS  OF  THE  SPANISH  COLONIES 

The  Spanish  system  of  colonial  administration  was  an  adap 
tation  beyond  the  seas  of  fundamental  administrative,  judicial 
and  ecclesiastical  institutions  and  principles  which  had  grown 
up  and  had  proved  serviceable  throughout  a  long  period  of 
successful  use  in  Spain.  As  the  audiencias  and  their  allied 
officials  had  shown  themselves  to  be  efficient  as  agencies  of  cen 
tralization  in  the  isolated  provinces  of  Spain,  so  they  were 
utilized,  by  the  organization  which  they  effected,  to  bring  the 
colonies  nearer  the  mother  country.  When  Spain  was  con 
fronted  with  the  necessity  of  governing  her  vast  empire,  it  was 
natural  that  she  should  profit  by  her  former  administrative 
experience,  and  make  use  of  those  institutions  of  government 
which  had  proved  successful  at  home. 

The  purpose  of  the  present  chapter  is  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that,  these  institutions  which  had  served  in  Spain,  and  were 
still  in  process  of  development  there,  were  utilized  in  all  of 
the  colonies.  The  Philippine  audiencia,  which  will  be  more 
particularly  studied  in  subsequent  chapters,  was  not  a  rare  and 
isolated  exception,  but  rather  an  integral  part  of  a  great  ad 
ministrative  system.1  This  will  more  clearly  appear  from  a 
sketch  of  the  early  development  of  colonial  administration. 

In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  concession  made  by  the 
Catholic  Monarchs  at  Santa  Fe  on  April  30,  1492,  Columbus  was 
given  the  title  of  "Admiral,  Viceroy,  and  Governor  of  the  Un- 


i  Vander  Linden,  In  his  L'expanaion  coloniale  de  VEspagne  (p.  360), 
states  that  the  Philippine  audiencia  exercised  fewer  governmental  func 
tions  than  did  the  audiencias  of  New  Spain  and  Peru.  It  is  true  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  was  confined  to  a 
territory  which  was  politically  and  economically  of  less  importance  to 
Spain  and  to  the  world  in  general  than  New  Spain  and  Peru.  It  is  the 


Early  Colonial  Government  9 

discovered  Lands  and  Seas  of  the  Indies."5  He  was  likewise 
entrusted  with  the  duty  of  proposing  three  candidates  for  the 
government  of  each  colony,  and  from  these  three  names  the 
king  was  to  select  one.  It  was  further  provided  that  the 
alcaldes  and  alguaciles  for  the  administration  of  justice  should 
be  named  by  Columbus,  and  that  he  should  hear  appeals  from 
these  minor  judges  in  second  instance.  This  is  a  brief  outline 
of  the  first  government  and  judiciary  provided  for  the  New 
World.  It  is  improbable  that  this  arrangement  was  the  product 
of  any  great  amount  of  study  or  reflection.  It  was  formulated 
before  the  New  World  had  even  been  discovered,  and  this 
scheme,  as  well  as  the  conditions  of  commerce  and  tribute  which 
went  with  it,  were  largely  proposed  by  Columbus,  and  acceded 
to  by  the  Catholic  Monarchs  without  anticipation  of  the  tre 
mendous  consequences  which  were  to  come  from  that  voyage  of 
discovery  and  those  which  were  to  follow  it. 

When  Columbus  undertook  his  second  and  later  voyages  the 
Catholic  rulers  began  to  modify  the  conditions  of  the  original 
compact  by  sending  royal  representatives  with  him  to  take 
account  of  his  expeditions.  The  difficulties  which  Columbus 
had  in  the  government  of  his  West  Indian  colony  are  too  well 
known  to  be  more  than  referred  to  here.  Through  the  influence 
of  Fonseca,  and  the  gradual  realization  of  the  tremendous  size 
and  importance  of  the  new  dominions,  the  rulers  of  Spain  began 
to  feel  that  a  mistake  had  been  made  in  granting  to  this  Genoese 
sailor  and  to  his  heirs  the  complete  proprietorship  and  govern- 


conviction  of  the  writer  that  the  distance  and  isolation  of  the  Philip 
pines,  their  proximity  to  Japan,  China,  and  the  hostile  colonies  of  the 
Portuguese  and  the  Dutch,  the  necessities  of  self-dependence  and 
defense,  the  corruption  of  the  governors  and  officials  and  the  problem 
of  dealing  independently  with  the  ecclesiastical  organization  within  the 
colony,  forced  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  to  take  upon  itself  powers  and 
responsibilities  as  extensive,  at  least,  as  were  assumed  by  the  Audi 
encia  of  Mexico. 

2  "Titulo  expedido  por  los  Reyes  Catolicos,  30  de  Abril,  1492,"  in 
Navarrete,  Coleccion  de  vloges,  II,  9-11;  also  see  Vander  Linden,  op. 
tit.,  277-283;  338. 


10  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

ment  of  this  distant  empire.  The  abrogation  of  the  contract  was 
a  natural  consequence.  It  was  the  repudiation  of  a  colonial 
system  which  had  been  created  in  the  dark,  and  formulated 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  conditions  and  problems  to  be  met. 
Such  an  arrangement  was  foredoomed  to  failure,  and  if  the 
colonies  were  to  be  administered  successfully,  reform  was 
necessary. 

In  1507,  the  towns  of  Espanola  petitioned  the  king  for  the 
same  privileges  and  forms  of  government  as  were  possessed  by  the 
towns  of  Spain.  The  request  was  granted,  and  municipal  rights 
were  bestowed  upon  fourteen  towns.  These  concessions  included 
the  privilege  of  electing  their  own  rcgidores  and  alcaldes  ordi- 
narios3  and  the  rights  of  local  legislation  and  administration  of 
justice.  The  principle  was  subsequently  enunciated  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  kingdoms  of  Castile  and  of  the  Indies  are  under  one 
crown,  the  laws  and  the  order  of  government  of  one  should  be  as 
similar  to  and  as  much  in  agreement  with  the  other  as  possible;  our 
royal  council,  in  the  laws  and  establishments  which  are  ordered,  must 
strive  to  reduce  the  form  and  manner  of  their  government  to  the  style 
and  order  by  which  the  kingdoms  of  Castile  and  Leon  are  governed  and 
ruled,  to  the  extent  that  the  diversity  and  difference  of  the  lands  and 
nations  permit.* 

In  1511,  a  tribunal  of  independent  royal  judges  was  con 
stituted  in  the  colony  of  Espanola  to  try  cases  appealed  from 


s  See  Altamira,  Hifitoria  de  la  civilizacion  espatlola,  II,  477-480; 
Bancroft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  247-288;  Helps,  Spanish  con 
quest,  (1856),  I,  187-227: 

In  the  Spanish  colonies  an  alcalde  was  usually  an  ordinary  judge, 
not  always  trained  in  the  law  to  the  extent  of  being  a  letrado  or 
togado.  An  alcalde  ordinario  or  an  alcalde  de  ayuntamiento  tried  cases 
in  first  instance.  An  alcalde  mayor  or  an  alcalde  de  partido  might 
try  cases  on  appeal  from  these.  Generally  speaking,  alcaldes  or  dinar  ios 
were  town  judges,  in  contrast  to  alcaldes  may  ores  who  had  provincial 
jurisdiction  as  well.  Alcaldes  ordinaries  and  regidores  were  members 
of  the  town  ayuntamientos  or  cabildos  (municipal  councils).  Regidores 
did  not  exercise  judicial  functions. 

*  Recopilacion  de  leyes  de  los  reinos  de  las  Indias  (hereinafter  to 
be  referred  to  as  the  Recopilacion),  lib.  2,  tit.  2,  ley  13.  For  an  account 
of  the  Recopilacion,  see  footnote  40,  below. 


Predecessor  of  the  Audiencia  11 

the  town  magistrates  and  the  governor.5  This  judicial  body 
may  be  considered  as  the  predecessor  of  the  royal  audiencia 
which  was  established  fifteen  years  later.  The  organization  and 
purpose  of  the  tribunal  were  exactly  similar  to  those  of  the 
courts  existing  in  the  frontier  provinces  of  Spain  before  the 
establishment  of  audiencias.  The  chief  reason  for  its  creation 
was  the  need  of  checking  the_abuses  oj  an  absolute  governor. 
This  tribunal  was  composed  of  three  magistrates,  who  were 
possessed  of  the  licentiate's  degree,  designated  as  alcaldes 
may  ores,  and  appointed  by  the  king.  They  were  empowered  to 
hear  and  determine  appeals  from  the  governor  and  from  his 
tenientes  and  alcaldes.6  These  magistrates,  acting  collectively, 
became  at  once  official  organs  for  the  expression  of  the  needs 
of  the  colony  in  non-judicial  matters,  frequently  presenting 
memorials  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  independently  of  the 
governor.7  The  crown  had  already  assumed  direction  of  the 
administrative  and  executive  affairs  of  the  colony  of  Puerto 
Eico,  on  August  15,  1509,  by  naming  a  special  governor  for  that 
island.  On  July  25,  1511,  Diego  Colon,  son  of  the  dis 
coverer,  was  named  governor  of  Espanola,  and  of  the  other 
islands  and  of  the  mainland  discovered  by  his  father.  This 


s  Bancroft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  269;   see  note  27  of  this 
chapter. 

6  In  some  of  the  early  Spanish  colonies  the  alcalde  was  elected  by  his 
fellow-townsmen.    He  exercised  the  functions  of  judge  and  chief  execu 
tive,  subject  to  the  governor,  or  adelantado,  and  in  the  absence  of  the 
latter  assumed  the  government  of  the  colony.    Alcaldes  in  new  settle 
ments  or  on  expeditions  were  different  in  character  and  exercised  func 
tions  distinct   from  those  of  the  alcaldes  of  the   later  periods.     This 
earlier  type  probably  existed  in  Espanola  under  Columbus    (see  Ban 
croft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  175,  330,  note  7).  That  their  duties 
varied   in   different   colonies   may   be   deduced    from   the   statement   of 
Bancroft  that  "the  alcaldes  mayores  of  New  Spain  under  Cortes  were 
merely   entrusted    with    judicial    powers  .  .  .  later   those    of    San    Lufs 
Potosi  and  other  places  acted  also  as  lieutenants  for  captains-general, 
and  exercised,  in  other  respects,  the  duties  and  ceremonies  of  gover 
nors"    (Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,   III,   520).     The  term,   therefore, 
does  not  always  convey  a  clear  impression  of  the  exact  nature  of  the 
duties  attached  to  the  office. 

7  Bancroft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  269. 


12  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

latter  act  of  royal  intervention  did  not  confirm,  but  rather 
abrogated  in  practice,  the  claims  of  this  same  Colon  to  the 
inheritance  of  the  provinces  which  had  been  given  formerly  to 
his  father.  This  act  maintained  the  pre-eminence  and  authority 
of  the  Spanish  moiiarchs  in  these  territories.8  The  further 
growth  and  development  of  the  West  Indian  colonies,  and 
especially  the  increasing  Spanish  population,  called  for  the 
establishment  of  a  more  efficient  tribunal  of  administration  and 
justice.  This  need  was  met  in  the  creation  of  the  first  audiencia 
in  America,  that  of  Santo  Domingo,  which  was  established  Sep 
tember  14,  1526. 

The  law,  which  has  been  cited  already,  providing  that  the 
administration  of  the  Indies  should  be  patterned  in  all  ways 
after  the  governments  of  Castile  and  Leon,  shows  very  clearly 
the  natural  influence  of  the  early  history  and  institutions  of 
Spain.  The  audiencias  established  in  the  colonies  were  at  first 
similar  in  jurisdiction  and  organization  to  those  of  Spain,  which 
country  had  already  succeeded  in  governing  provinces  that  were, 
in  effect,  almost  as  isolated  and  as  far  from  actual  contact  with 
the  court  as  were  the  Indies.  The  audiencia  of  Spain  had 
proved  of  immense  value  as  an  agency  of  direct  control.  It 
had  been  found  satisfactory  under  conditions  very  similar  to 
those  in  the  Indies,  which  were  not  regarded  as  foreign  pos 
sessions,  but  as  integral  parts  of  Castile,  being  the  property  of 
the  monarchs  of  that  kingdom,  and  under  their  personal  direc 
tion. 

Before  proceeding  with  a  description  of  the  growth  of  the 
audiencia  system,  it  is  desirable,  first,  to  note  the  establishment 
in  Spain  of  two  organs  for  the  administration  of  colonial  affairs. 
These  may  be  examined  here  conveniently,  because  their  creation 
antedated  the  institution  of  the  audiencia  in  the  colonies.  The 
first,  chronologically,  as  well  as  in  importance,  was  the  Casa  de 


Altamira,  Historia,  IT,  479. 


The  Casa  de  Cantratacion  13 

Contraiacwn,  which  was  created  January  10,  1503. s  This  essen 
tially  commercial  body  was  intended  at  first  to  supervise  the  im 
port  and  export  trade  of  Spain  with  the  colonies,  and  to  arrange 
for  the  sale  and  distribution  of  imported  articles,  concessions  of 
cargo  to  individuals,  the  lading  and  discharging  of  cargo,  and  the 
collection  of  duties.  The  functions  of  this  body  were  soon  am 
plified  to  the  extent  that  it  was  given  jurisdiction  over  emigra 
tion  to  the  colonies.  In  1509  it  was  granted  further  authority 
over  certain  criminal  cases  relating  to  trade,  and  in  1510,  letrados 
were  added  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Casa  for  the  better  determina 
tion  of  legal  affairs. 

As  established  in  1503,  the  Casa  de  Contratacion  consisted  of 
a  treasurer,  auditor  (comptroller),  and  factor.10  That  the  insti 
tution  flourished  and  increased  in  importance  may  be  deduced 
from  the  reform  of  Philip  II,  on  September  25,  1583,  whereby 
the  above  mentioned  officials  were  retained  and  a  royal  audi- 
encia  was  created  within  the  Casa.  This  was  composed  of  three 
jueces  letrados  and  a  fiscal,  besides  the  numerous  subordinate  of 
ficials  who  usually  accompanied  the  judicial  tribunal.11  Thougln 
at  first  it  exercised  some  of  the  functions  which  belonged  later 
to  the  Coiincil  of  the  Indies,  it  came  subsequently  to  be  subordi 
nate  to  that  body.12  It  was  transferred  to  Cadiz  in  1717,  and 
was  suppressed  by  the  royal  decree  of  June  18,  1790,13  its  re 
maining  attributions  being  assumed  by  the  Consulado  of 
Seville.14 


9  Bourne,  Spain  in  America,  222;  Vander  Linden,  L' expansion 
colon-idle  de  I'Espagne,  339;  see  note  in  Bancroft,  History  of  Central 
America,  I.  280-283. 

1°  Bourne,  Spain  in  America,  222;  Moses,  The  Spanish  dependencies 
in  South  America.  I,  250-1;  see  Col.  Doc.  Ined.,  XXXI,  139-155. 

^  Recopilacion,  9-1-2,  5. 

i-  Ibid..  2-2-82,  auto  36;  Desdevises  du  Dezert,  Espagne  de  Vancien 
regime.  Les  institutions.  100-101;  see  Veitia  Linaje,  Norte  de  La  con- 
tratacion  de  las  Indicts  Occidentales.  passim. 

is  Zamora  y  Coronado,  Biblwtcca  de  legislation  ultramarine  I,  450- 
451;  II,  374  ct  seq.;  also  Recopilacion,  9-1-1,  note  1;  Vander  Linden, 
op.  cit.,  344. 

i*  Desdevises  du  Dezert,  op.  cit.,  100. 


14  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

The  beginnings  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  may  be  noted 
in  the  creation  of  a  special  committee  of  the  Council  of  Castile 
for  the  supervision  of  administrative  affairs  in  the  colonies. 
This  was  eight  years  after  the  establishment  of  the  Casa  de 
Contratacion,  when  another  need  than  the  purely  commer 
cial,  for  which  the  Casa  de  Contratacion  had  served,  began  to 
be  felt.15  The  inadequacy  of  the  system  devised  by  the  Catholic 
Monarchs  at  Santa  Fe  had  already  become  evident.  The  prob 
lems  of  administration  in  the  colonies  were  making  clear 
the  need  of  a  more  effective  system  of  regulation.  Just  as 
the  number  of  suits  to  be  tried  before  the  old  tribunal  de  la 
cort  del  rey  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  the  king 
could  no  longer  attend  to  them  personally,  so  the  problems  of 
administration  in  the  new  colonies  demanded  more  attention  and 
regulation  than  could  be  provided  by  the  administrative  machin 
ery  at  hand.  The  functions  of  this  new  tribunal,  if  it  may  be 
designated  as  such  at  this  time,  do  not  seem  to  have  been  clearly 
expressed  at  first,  at  least  by  any  law  or  decree  now  at  hand,  but 
it  appears  that  they  were  advisory  rather  than  administrative. 
It  soon  became  evident  that  a  distinction  had  to  be  made  between 
the  prerogatives  of  this  council  and  those  of  the  Casa  de  Con 
tratacion.  During  the  early  history  of  these  two  tribunals  there 
was  considerable  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  them.  It  is 
probable  that  until  the  reform  of  August  4,  1524,  was  promul 
gated,  active  supervision  of  colonial  affairs  was  maintained  by 
the  Council  of  Castile,  both  the  Casa  de  Contratacion  and  this 
new  tribunal  of  the  Indies  acting  under  its  direction.  Charles  V 
gave  new  life  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Indies  on  the  above  date  by 
assigning  to  it  definite  legislative  and  administrative  powers, 
putting  at  its  head  Loaysa,  the  general  of  the  Dominican  order 
and  his  own  confessor.  The  Council  was  further  modified  by 


is  Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  578;  see  Desdevises  du  Dezert,  Les  insti 
tutions,  95-102;   Robertson,  History  of  America,  IV  (Book  VIII),  21. 


The  Council  of  the  Indies  15 

Charles  V  in  1542,  and  by  Philip  II  in  1571,  in  the  following 
terms : 

It  is  our  royal  will  that  the  said  council  shall  have  the  supreme 
jurisdiction  in  all  our  occidental  Indies  .  .  .  and  of  the  affairs  which 
result  from  them,  .  .  .  and  for  the  good  government  and  adminis 
tration  of  justice,  it  may  order  and  make  with  our  advice,  the  laws, 
pragmatics,  ordinances  and  provisions,  general  and  particlular,  .  .  . 
which  .  .  .  may  be  required  for  the  good  of  the  provinces  .  .  . 
and  in  the  matters  pertaining  to  the  Indies,  that  the  said  our  council  be 
obeyed  and  respected,  and  that  its  provisions  in  all,  and  by  all  be 
fulfilled  and  obeyed  in  all  particulars.^ 

The  Council  of  the  Indies,  as  established  in  1524,  consisted  of 
a  president,  a  high  chancellor,  eight  members  who  were  lawyers, 
a  fiscal,  two  secretaries  and  a  lieutenant  chancellor.17  All  these 
were  required  to  be  of  noble  birth  and  qualified  by  experience 
and  ability  to  carry  to  a  successful  issue  the  high  responsibilities 
which  they  were  called  upon  to  discharge.18  Besides  there  was  a 
corps  of  accountants,  auditors,  copyists,  reporters  and  clerks. 
The  number  of  these  last-mentioned  functionaries  was  enormous, 
especially  in  subsequent  years,  wrhen  correspondence  with  twelve 
or  thirteen  different  colonies  was  maintained. 

The  Council  of  the  Indies  was  the  high  court  of  appeal  to 
which  all  cases  from  the  colonial  audiencias  came  for  final  ad 
judication.  It  was,  however,  not  only  a  court  of  appeal  in  judi- 


is  Recopilacion,  2-2-2. 

!7  By  the  royal  decree  of  March  24,  1834,  the  Consejo  de  Castilla  and 
the  Consejo  de  Indicts  were  amalgamated.  In  place  of  these  was  created 
the  Tribunal  Supremo  de  Espaiia  e  Indias,  with  judicial  functions  and  a 
Consejo  Real  de  Espaiia  e  Indian  for  governmental  and  administrative 
affairs.  On  September  28,  1836,  the  Consejo  Real  de  Espana  v  Indias 
was  suppressed.  On  July  6,  1845,  the  Consejo  de  Estado  assumed  charge 
of  affairs  pertaining  to  the  Indies,  with  a  separate  Ministerio  de  Ultra 
mar.  This  reform  was  re-enacted  on  September  24,  1853  (Martinez 
Alcubilla,  Diceionario,  III,  313-315;  Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  578-579). 

!8  It  became  the  practice  in  later  years  to  reward  successful  colonial 
administrators,  including  viceroys,  governors,  and  magistrates,  with 
membership  in  this  council.  Among  those  so  elevated  were  Juan 
Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  magistrate  of  the  Audiencia  of  Peru,  Jose  de  Gal- 
vez,  visitor  of  New  Spain,  Governor  Simon  de  Anda  y  Salazar,  and  the 
able  flsoal,  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  of  the  Philippines.  These  men 
rendered  very  distinguished  service  in  the  colonies. 


16  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

cial  matters,  but  also  a  directive  ministry  for  the  supervision  of 
the  administrative  acts  of  the  colonial  audiencias  and  ex 
ecutives. 

The  unqualified  success  of  the  Audiencia  of  Santo  Domingo, 
both  as  a  tribunal  of  justice  and  as  an  administrative  organ,  led 
to  the  general  establishment  of  the  institution  throughout  the 
Spanish  colonial  empire.  The  audiencias  which  were  created 
in  Spain's  colonies  from  1526  to  1893  follow  in  the  order  of 
their  establishment.19 

SANTO  DOMINGO,  created  September  14,  1526,  consisting  of  a  presi 
dent,  four  oidores,20  and  a  fiscal. 

MEXico,2i  created  November  29,  1527,  consisting  of  two  chambers  or 
salas,  a  criminal  and  a  civil,  a  president,  eight  oidores,  four  alcaldes 
del  crimen,  and  two  fisoales  for  civil  and  criminal  cases  respectively. 

PANAMA,  created  February  30,  1535,  with  a  president,  four  oidores 
and  a  fiscal. 

LIMA,  created  November  20,  1542,  with  two  chambers,  a  civil  and 


19  Rccopilacion,   2-15-2   to   14;    see    Danvila  y   Collado,   Reinado   de 
Carlos  III,  III,  151-157.     No  attempt  is  made  here  to  indicate  all  sub 
sequent  changes. 

20  Oidor,  a  ministro  togado  who  heard  and  sentenced  civil  suits  in  an 
audiencia  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  II,  661).     In  this  treatise  the  Spanish 
term  oidor  will  be  retained  throughout  to  designate  a  magistrate  of  that 
particular  class.     Oidor  is  sometimes  incorrectly  translated  into  "audi 
tor",  which   in  English  means  a  reviewer  of  accounts    (Spanish,   con- 
t(tdor).    The  Spanish  term  auditor  has  a  special  meaning,  referring  to 
a    particular    kind    of   magistrate,    as    auditor    de   guerra,    auditor    dc 
marina  or  auditor  de  rota  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  369-371).    Blair  and 
Robertson,  in  their  Philippine  Islands  (Cleveland,  1908),  have  used  the 
terms   oidor  and    "auditor"   interchangeably,   or    rather,   in   almost   all 
cases  they  have  translated  oidor  as  "auditor",  but  this  usage  will  not 
be  followed  here  for  the  reasons  given. 

The  oidor  is  also  to  be  distinguished  from  the  alcalde  del  crimen. 
The  latter  existed  only  in  the  larger  audiencias  of  Mexico  and  Peru,  or 
in  Manila,  Havana  or  Puerto  Rico  in  the  later  nineteenth  century. 
Alcaldes  del  crimen  in  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen 
turies  were  subordinate  in  rank  to  aid-ores,  but  by  virtue  of  the  reforms 
of  1812,  1836  and  1837,  the  latter  were  required  to  be  togados.  and  the 
ministers  of  all  the  audiencias  were  placed  in  the  same  class.  (Escriche, 
Diccionario,  I,  154;  I,  363-369;  II,  661;  Bancroft,  History  of  Central 
America,  I,  297;  see  also  Perez  y  Lopez,  Teatro  de  la  legislation, 
XXI,  351-369;  IV,  525-528;  Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario.  I,  525- 
526.) 

21  The    original    cedillas  refer   to    this   audiencia   as    La    Audiencia 
Real  de  la  Nueva  Espafia — see  Puga,  Provisioncs,  ccdulas,  f.  7. 


The  Audiencuis  of  the  Spanish  Colonies  17 

a  criminal,  a  president,  eight  oidorcs,  four  criminal  alcaldes,  and  two 
fisoales,  as  in  Mexico. 

SANTIAGO  DE  GUATEMALA,  created  September  13,  1543,  with  a  presi 
dent,  five  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

GUADALAJARA,  created  February  15,  1548,  with  a  president,  four 
oidorcs,  and  a  fiscal. 

SANTA  FK  (New  Granada),  created  July  17,  1549,  with  a  president, 
four  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

LA  PLATA  (Charcas),  created  September  4,  1559,  with  a  president, 
five  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

SAN  FRANCISCO  DE  QUITO,  created  November  29,  1563,  with  a  presi 
dent,  four  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

MANILA,  created  May  5,  1583,  with  a  president,  four  oidores,  and  a 
fiscal. 

SANTIAGO  DE  CHILE,  created  February  17,  1609,  with  a  president, 
four  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

BUENOS  AYRES,  created  November  2,  1661,  with  a  president,  three 
oidores,  and  a  fiscal;  recreated  July  2,  1778,  when  Buenos  Ayres  was 
made  a  viceroyalty. 

CARACAS,  created  June  13,  1786,  with  a  regent,  three  oidores,  and  a 
fiscal. 

Cuzco,  created  February  26,  1787,  with  a  regent,  three  oidores,  and 
a  fiscal. 

PUERTO  Rico,  created  June  19,  1831,  to  consist  of  a  president,  regent, 
three  oidores,  and  a  fiscal. 

HAVANA,  created  September  26,  1835,  reorganized  June  16,  1838,  to 
consist  of  a  regent,  four  oidorcs,  and  two  fisoales.-- 

PUERTO  PRINCIPE,  transferred  in  1797  from  Santo  Domingo,  re 
organized  September-26,  1835,  to  consist  of  a  regent,  four  oidorcs,  and 
a  fiscal.  This  audiencia  was  suppressed  and  its  territory  added  to  that 
of  Havana  on  October  21,  1853.  It  was  recreated  on  February  22, 
1878,  and  on  May  23,  1879. 

SANTIAGO  DE  CUBA,  created  September  26,  1835,  to  consist  of  a 
regent,  four  oidores,  and  a  fiscal.  This  audiencia  was  later  suppressed, 
and  its  territory  was  added  to  the  Audiencia  of  Havana;  it  was  again 
reformed  and  added  to  Puerto  Principe  on  February  22,  1878. 

CEBT?  (Philippines),  created  February  26,  1886,  to  consist  of  a  presi 
dent,  four  magistrates,  a  fiscal,  and  an  assistant  fiscal. 

VIGAN    (Philippines)    created   on   May   19,    1893,   to   consist   of   one 


-2  Zamora  y  Coronado,  Biblioteca.  I,  452;  I,  483-486;  Martinez 
Alcubilla,  Diccionario,  VIII,  under  "Justicia".  See  also  Danvila  y 
Collado,  Reinado  de  Carlos  III,  VI,  157-158. 


18  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

chief  justice,  two  associates,  a  prosecuting  attorney,  and  an  assistant 
prosecutor. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  audiencias  of  Mexico  and  Lima  con 
tained  the  greatest  number  of  magistrates.  They  were  divided 
into  two  solas,  a  civil  and  a  criminal,  with  appropriate  judges 
and  fiscalcs  for  each.23  The  judges  of  the  criminal  branch  were 
designated  as  alcaldes  and  not  as  oidores.  These  audiencias  were 
at  first  conterminous  in  territorial  jurisdiction  with  the  respective 
captaincies-general  of  those  names,  but  they  enjoyed  no  greater 
power  or  pre-eminence  before  the  Council  of  the  Indies  than  the 
audiencias  of  the  lesser  captaincies-general.  In  the  words  of  the 
royal  decree  of  establishment, 

there  are  founded  twelve  royal  audiencias  and  chanceries  ...  in 
order  that  our  vassals  may  have  persons  to  rule  and  govern  them  in 
peace  and  justice,  and  their  districts  have  been  divided  into  govern 
ments,  corregimientos  and  alcaldias  mayores  who  will  be  provided  in 
accordance  with  our  orders  and  laws  and  will  be  subordinate  to  our 
royal  audiencias  and  to  our  Supreme  Council  of  the  Indies  .  .  .  and 
may  no  change  be  made  without  our  express  order  or  that  of  the 
Council. 24 

Many  changes  were  made  in  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
the  various  audiencias.  The  audiencias  of  Lima  and  Mexico,  in 
addition  to  their  jurisdiction  over  their  respective  viceroyalties, 
exercised  governmental  authority  over  the  adjacent  districts  when 
the  viceroys  were  absent;  the  Audiencia  of  Lima  over  Charcas, 
Quito  and  Tierra  Firme  (Panama),  and  that  of  Mexico  over 
what  was  later  Guadalajara,  the  Philippines,  and  Yucatan.  All 
of  these,  except  the  latter,  came  to  have  audiencias,  with  the 
usual  powers  and  authority.2"' 

The  first  seven  audiencias  were  founded  by  Charles  V.    Three 


23  By  the  royal  decree  of  May  23,  1879,  the  audiencias  at  Havana 
and  Manila  were  each  given  a  civil  and  criminal  sala  and  a  fisoal  was 
provided  for  each  sala  as  in  the  audiencias  of  Mexico  and  Lima.    When 
it  was  necessary,   oidwes  could  be  transferred   from   one  sala  to   the 
other.— Coleccion  legislative   cle  Espana,    CXXII,   1093-1100. 

24  Recopilacion,  2-15-1. 

25  See   Professor   Shepherd's  brief  description   of  the   governmental 
machinery  of  Spain's  colonies,  in  his  Guide  to  the  materials  for  the 


The  Extension  of  Colonial  Audiencias  19 

were  created  by  Philip  II.  The  audiencias  of  Santiago  de  Chile 
and  Buenos  Ayres  were  established  by  Philip  III  and  Philip  IV, 
respectively.  The  greater  number  of  these  audiencias  was  created 
at  the  time  of  the  most  rapid  extension  of  the  tribunals  in  Spain ; 
their  establishment  was  part  of  the  same  general  tendency ;  they 
were  therefore  closely  related.  When  the  audiencias  of  Santo 
Domingo  and  Mexico  were  formed,  there  had  been  already  in 
existence  in  Spain  the  chanceries  of  Valladolid,  and  Granada. 
Thirteen  audiencias  were  established  in  Spain  after  those  of 
Santo  Domingo  and  New  Spain  were  created  in  the  colonies. 
The  two  Spanish  audiencias  mentioned  above  were  designated 
as  models  for  the  tribunals  of  the  Indies,  and  the  principle 
was  laid  down  that  if  a  necessary  provision  was  omitted  from 
the  laws  of  establishment  of  the  colonial  audiencias,  "all  the 
presidents  and  audiencias  of  those  our  realms  are  ordered  to 
preserve  the  order  and  practices  which  are  followed  in  the  chan 
ceries  of  Granada  and  ValLadolid."26 

Territorially,  the  audiencias  of  Santo  Domingo,  Mexico,  and 
Lima  were  the  nucleii  from  which  and  around  which  most  of  the 
other  audiencias  were  established.  Being  the  first  in  their  re 
spective  sections,  they  included  more  territory  than  they  could 
govern  with  facility;  thus  it  later  became  necessary  to  divide 
up  their  districts.  Santo  Domingo  held  sway  at  first  over 
Espaiiola,  Cuba,  and  Puerto  Rico,  with  authority  also  over  Vene 
zuela  and  subsequently  over  Louisiana  and  Florida.27  New  Gra- 


liistory  of  the  United  States  in  Spanish  archives,  10-12;  note  also  the 
articles  recently  published  by  Desdevises  du  Dezert  in  the  Revue  his- 
toriqite  (CXXV,  225-264;  CXXVI,  14-60,  225-270)  under  the  title  of 
"Vice-rois  et  capitaines  generaux  des  Indes  espagnoles  a  la  fin  du 
XVIII  siecle." 

26  Recopilacion,  2-15-17. 

2"  Ibid.,  2-15-2.  Although  the  Recopilacion  and  Danvila  y  Collado 
(cited  in  note  19)  give  the  date  of  the  establishment  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Santo  Domingo  as  1526,  the  royal  decree  issued  at  Pamplona,  October 
22,  1523,  is  addressed  to  nros  oydores  de  la  audicncia  real  de  la  Ysla 
Espaiiola  (A.  I.,  139-1-6,  torn.  9,  fol.  225).  There  are  various  refer 
ences  antedating  1526  in  this  and  the  following  legajo. 


20  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

nada  was  conceded  an  audicncia  in  1549,  and  to  this  province 
were  added  the  possessions  of  Panama  when  the  audiencia  of 
that  name  were  suppressed.  The  Audiencia  of  Mexico,  created 
eight  years  before  New  Spain  was  made  a  viceroyalty,  had  terri 
torial  jurisdiction  at  first  over  a  vast  empire,  which  was  later 
divided  into  smaller  governments  with  audiencias.  Its  limits, 
as  defined  in  the  laws  of  the  Indies,  extended  on  both  oceans 
from  the  Cape  of  Florida  to  the  Cape  of  Honduras,  and  included 
Yucatan,  and  Tabasco.^8 

The  audiencias  of  Guadalajara,  Santiago  de  Guatemala,  and 
Manila  all  set  definite  limits  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Mexico.  The  Audiencia  of  Lima  had  authority  at  first  over 
most  of  Spanish  South  America,  but  its  scope  was  in  the  same 
manner  diminished  from  time  to  time  by  the  establishment  of  the 
audiencias  of  Santa  Fe,  La  Plata  (Chareas),  Quito,  Santiago  de 
Chile,  and  Buenos  Ayres.  Before  the  Audiencia  of  Cuzco  was 
instituted  in  1787,  jurisdiction  over  that  ancient  city  and  district 
was  divided  between  the  audiencias  of  Lima  and  La  Plata ; 
Arica,  although  it  belonged  to  the  district  of  Lima,  was  not 
governed  under  that  jurisdiction,  but  was  administered  by  a 
corregidor  directly  responsible  to  the  audiencia  at  Charcas.29 
Chile  and  Panama  were  subordinate  governmentally  to  the  vice 
roy  of  Peru,  but  the  audiencias  were  independent.30 

Cuba  was  early  divided  into  two  districts  under  the  rule  of 
captains-general,  those  of  Havana  and  Santiago  de  Cuba.31  By 
cedula  of  February  24,  1784,  Havana  was  made  independ 
ent  of  the  Audiencia  of  Santo  Domingo  in  administrative  mat 
ters.  Aside  from  the  one  at  Puerto  Principe,  audiencias  were 


2s  ibid.,  2-15-3.  For  the  exact  limits  of  this  audiencia  see  Puga,  Pro- 
risiancs,  ccdulas,  ff.  12-13;  47-48,  and  Hackett,  "Delimitation  of  politi 
cal  jurisdictions  in  Spanish  North  America  to  1535,"  in  Hispanic 
American  Historical  Review,  I,  60,  note  102. 

29  Hid.,  2-15-13,  14,  15. 

so  ibid.,  5-1-2,  3;   2-15-4,  12. 

si  Ibid.,  5-1-16. 


Classification  and  Rank  21 

not  created  in  Cuba,  however,  until  1835  and  1838,  respectively. 
Prior  to  this,  Cuba  was  subject  to  the  Audiencia  of  Puerto 
Principe,  the  successor  of  Santo  Domingo,  in  judicial  matters, 
as  the  governments  in  Cuba  were  military.  However,  military 
cases  were  carried  before  the  captains-general  of  Havana  and  of 
Santiago  de  Cuba,  respectively.32 

Although  all  the  audiencias  had  the  same  rank  before  the 
Council  of  the  Indies,  both  as  political  and  judicial  tribunals, 
those  of  Lima  and  Mexico  may  be  said  to  have  been  tribunals 
of  the  first  class,  for  reasons  which  we  have  noted.  Indeed,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  it  was  the  individual  captaincy- 
general  that  had  an  audiencia,  whether  the  captaincy-general 
happened  to  be  a  viceroyalty  or  not.  Judged  by  the  amount 
of  powrer  they  exercised,  there  were  three  classes  of  audiencias : 
those  of  the  viceroyalties,  of  the  captaincies-general,  and  of 
the  presidencies.  On  this  basis  of  classification,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  first-mentioned  were  the  superior  institutions.  In 
matters  of  military  administration,  the  captains-general  had 
the  same  power  as  the  viceroys,  while  the  audiencias  exercised 
less  intervention  in  the  government  than  in  the  presidencies. 


32  Zamora  y  Coronado,  Bibliotcca,  I,  486-487.  The  following  will 
give  some  idea  of  the  size  and  rank  of  the  respective  audiencias  of  the 
Spanish  colonies  in  the  later  eighteenth  century.  This  table  was  com 
piled  from  the  Rcglame-nto  de  .'/  de  Mayo,  1788  (Perez  y  Lopez,  Teatro, 
IV,  522-524). 


Audiencia. 

Lima   

No.  of 

Salas. 

9 

No.  of 
fiscales. 

2 

Magis 
trates. 

15 

Salary 
of  regent, 
pesos. 

10  000 

Total 
budget, 
pesos. 
95  000 

Mexico    

.  .      2 

2 

15 

9  000 

85  500 

Charcas    

.  .     1 

2 

5 

9  725 

43  745 

Chile   

.  .     I 

2 

5 

9  720 

43  740 

Buenos  Ayres  .  .  . 

.  .     1 

2 

5 

6  000 

36  726 

Manila    

I 

9 

5 

7  000 

31  500 

Guadalajara    .     .  . 
Guatemala   

.  .    1 
.  .     1 

2 
2 

5 
5 

6,600 
6  600 

29,700 
29  700 

Santo  Domingo  .  . 
Santa  Fe    

.  .    1 
.  .     1 

2 
2 

5 
5 

6,600 
6  600 

29,700 
29  700 

Quito   

.  .     1 

2 

5 

6  600 

29  700 

Cuzco    

.  .     1 

1 

3 

9  000 

27  000 

Caracas    . 

1 

1 

3 

5.000 

18  v,no 

22  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

In  the  latter,  the  audiencias  (and  presidents)  exercised  gov 
ernmental  functions  as  well  as  judicial,  with  appeal  to  the 
viceroy.  Though  they  had  no  military  power,  and  their  scope 
was  strictly  limited  in  financial  affairs,  these  audiencias  actually 
governed  their  districts.  This  the  audiencias  of  the  viceroyalties 
never  did,  except  when  they  governed  ad  interim. 

Before  proceeding  with  a  study  of  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  colonial  audiencias,  it  would  be  well  to  compare  them,  as  to 
extent  of  jurisdiction  and  authority,  with  those  which  were  in 
operation  in  Spain.  AVere  they  equal  ?  Did  the  colonial  institu 
tions,  on  account  of  their  isolation,  exercise  prerogatives  which 
were  unknown  to  the  tribunals  of  the  Peninsula,  or  vice  versa? 
These  questions  were  answered  by  Juan  de  Solorzano  y  Pereyra, 
a  distinguished  Spanish  jurist,  oidor  of  the  Audiencia  of  Lima 
in  1610,  and  subsequently  councillor  of  the  Indies.33  Solorzano 
y  Pereyra  illustrates  fourteen  points  of  difference  wherein  the 
audiencias  of  the  colonies  exceeded  those  of  the  Peninsula  in 
power  and  authority,  in  these  matters  exercising  jurisdiction 
equal  to  the  Council  of  Castile.  This,  he  said,  was  "on  ac 
count  of  the  great  distance  intervening  between  them  and  the 
king  or  his  royal  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  the  dangers  which 
delay  may  occasion."  Therefore,  he  said,  the  audiencias  had 


33  Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  Politico  Indiana  (Madrid,  1647).  This  was 
the  first  great  general  work  on  the  political  institutions  of  the  Indies, 
and  probably  the  most  valuable  and  comprehensive  of  its  kind  ever 
published,  barring  possibly  the  Recopilacwn.  It  comprises  history, 
description,  law,  discussions  of  suits  and  cases,  litigation  and  legal 
citations.  Its  ample  title-page  states  that  it  is  "divided  into  six 
books,  in  which,  with  great  distinction  and  study,  are  treated 
and  resolved  all  matters  relating  to  the  discovery,  description, 
acquisition  and  retention  of  the  Indies,  and  their  peculiar  government, 
as  well  as  concerning  the  persons  of  the  Indians  and  their  services, 
tributes,  tithes  and  encomiendas,  as  concerning  spiritual  and  ecclesi 
astical  affairs  and  doctrine,  inquisitors,  commissaries  of  crusade  and  of 
the  religious.  And  in  regard  to  temporal  affairs,  concerning  the  secular 
magistrates,  viceroys,  presidents,  audiencias,  the  Supreme  Council  and 
its  junta  clc  giicrra,  including  a  setting  forth  of  the  many  royal  c/'dulas 
which  have  been  despatched  for  the  latter."  Solorzano  y  Pereyra  con 
tributed  largely  to  the  codification  of  the  laws  of  the  Indies. 


Jurisdiction  of  the  Audiencias  23 

been  permitted  many  privileges  and  powers  denied  to  the  audi- 
encias  of  Spain.  The  most  important  of  these  powers  were  as 
follows:  jurisdiction  over  residencias  of  corregidores;  the  right 
to  send  out  special  investigators  (pesquisidores)  ;  supervision 
over  inferior  judges — seeing  that  they  properly  tried  cases  under 
their  authority,  care  for  the  education  and  good  treatment  of 
the  Indians  in  spiritual  and  temporal  matters,  and  the  punish 
ment  of  officials  who  were  remiss  in  that  particular ;  the  collec 
tion  of  tithes;  the  assumption  of  the  rights  and  obligations  of 
the  royal  patronage,  as  well  as  jurisdiction  over  cases  affecting 
the  same,  the  building  of  churches,  the  installment  of  curates 
and  holders  of  benefices,  and  the  inspection  and  possible  reten 
tion  of  bulls  and  briefs. 

The  colonial  audiencias  were  instructed  to  guard  the  royal 
prerogative,  and  were  authorized  to  try  all  persons  accused  of 
usurping  the  royal  jurisdiction.  They  were  to  see  that  officials, 
lay  and  ecclesiastical,  did  not  charge  excessive  fees  for  their 
services,  limiting  especially  those  exorbitant  charges  which 
priests  were  apt  to  demand  at  burials,  funerals,  marriages  and 
baptisms.  The  colonial  audiencias  were  given  supervision  over 
cspolios™  collecting,  administering  and  disposing  of  the  prop 
erties  left  by  deceased  prelates,  and  paying  claims  of  heirs  and 
creditors.  Another  duty  was  the  restraining  of  ecclesiastical 
judges  and  dignitaries  through  the  recurso  de  fuerza.33  This 
authority  had  been  permitted  to  the  chanceries  of  Valladolid 
and  Granada,  only. 

Although  viceroys  and  governors  were  granted  special  juris 
diction  over  administrative  matters,  they  were  authorized  to  call 
upon  the  acucrdos™  of  the  audiencias  for  counsel  and  advice 
whenever  an  exceptionally  arduous  case  presented  itself.  The 


s*  See  Chapter  X  of  this  book. 

35  Recurso  de  fuerza,  see  footnote  3,  Chapter  XI  of  this  work. 
so  The  origin  and  nature  of  the  ocuerdo  is  explained  in  Chapter  VI, 
note  78,  of  this  book;    see  also  Chapter   III,  note  37. 


24  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

audiencias  were  permitted  to  entertain  appeals  against  the  rul 
ings  of  viceroys  and  presidents,  but  these  appeals  could  be 
carried  again  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  In  the  same  manner 
that  affairs  of  government  belonged  to  the  private  jurisdiction 
of  the  executive,  so  did  financial  matters,  according  to  Solorzano 
y  Pereyra.  In  these,  however,  the  viceroy  or  governor  was 
assisted  in  the  solution  of  perplexing  problems  by  the  acuerdo 
general  de  hacienda,  a  body  composed  of  oidores,  oficiales 
rcales37  and  contadores.  On  the  death,  disability,  or  absence  of 
the  viceroy  or  governor  and  captain-general  it  was  ordered 
that  the  government  should  pass  under  the  charge  of  the  entire 
audiencia.  Lastly,  Solorzano  y  Pereyra  pointed  out  that  while 
the  sole  duty  of  the  Spanish  oidores  was  to  try  cases,  the  magis 
trates  of  the  colonial  audiencias  were  called  upon  for  a  num 
ber  of  miscellaneous  functions,  such  as  those  of  visitad-or,  or 
inspector  of  the  provinces,  or  of  other  departments  of  the  gov 
ernment,  as  asesor  of  the  Santa  Cruzada,38  as  inspector  of  ships, 
as  auditor  de  guerra,  as  asesor  of  the  governor,  and  as  juez  de 
las  executorlas,  under  commission  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
to  collect  and  remit  to  the  government  receiver  all  money 


37  The  oficiales  rcales  consisted  of  the  tcsorero  (treasurer),  contador 
(accountant)  and  factor  (disbursing  officer  and  supply  agent).  See 
Recopilacion,  8-4-34,  35;  8-2-5,  6. 

The  laws  of  March  2,  1618,  and  of  November  17,  1626,  ordered  that 
in  colonies  having  audiencias  the  acuerdos  dc  real  hacienda  should  be 
attended  by  the  president  (governor  or  viceroy),  fiscal,  senior  oidor,  and 
oficial  real,  respectively.  In  case  there  were  no  audiencia,  the  session 
should  then  consist  of  all  the  oficiales  recilcs  and  the  governor,  and 
then  the  votes  of  the  treasury  officials  should  be  final  (Reoopilacion, 
8-3-8,  11,  12).  Under  certain  circumstances  the  factor  was  assisted  by  a 
vee&or  and  a  proveedor.  The  duties  of  the  latter  officials  were  largely 
administrative  (ibid.,  8-4-38  to  39). 

Bancroft  (History  of  Mexico,  III,  520)  states  that  "the  provinces  of 
royal  officials  \oficialcs  rcales]  were  merely  revenue  districts  whose 
heads  received  their  appointment  from  the  king,  and  administered  their 
office  under  a  certain  supervision  from  the  viceroy  and  governors  attend 
ing  their  councils;  yet  they  were  responsible  only  to  the  tribunal  of 
finance  in  the  viceregal  capital,  and  this  again  reported  direct  to  Spain." 
See  also  Priestley,  Jose  de  Gdlvez,  76-82. 

as  Bull  of  the  Santa  Cruzada,  the  apostolic  bull  by  which  the  popes 
conceded  certain  indulgences  to  those  who  went  to  the  conquest  of 


The  Recopilacion  de  las  Indias  25 

derived  from  fines  and  penalties  imposed  by  official  visitors 
(visit adores) ,  judges  of  residencia,  etcetera.39 

With  the  exception  of  the  entertainment  of  the  recurso  de 
fuerza,  none  of  the  above-mentioned  functions  could  be  exer 
cised  by  the  audiencias  of  Spain.  Although  the  colonial  aiidi- 
encias  were  to  a  large  extent  patterned  after  those  of  Spain,  they 
had  greater  power  and  exercised  more  extensive  functions  almost 
from  the  beginning.  This  was  chiefly  owing  to  the  added 
responsibilities  of  government  resulting  from  the  isolation  of  the 
colonies  and  their  distance  from  the  home  government.  The 
audiencias  in  Spain  remained  almost  purely  judicial.  There  was 
no  need  or  opportunity  for  them  to  encroach  upon  the  executive, 
or  to  usurp  its  functions,  because  of  the  control  exercised  by  its 
immediate  representatives.  In  the  colonies  the  audiencias  were 
themselves  established  as  the  agents  of  the  royal  authority,  with 
the  special  duty  of  limiting  the  abuses  of  the  officials  of  the 
crown.  In  this  capacity,  aside  from  their  customary  duties,  the 
tribunals  exercised  far-reaching  authority  of  a  non-judicial 
character. 

It  is  desirable  to  point  out  in  this  connection  that  all  the 
colonial  audiencias  utilized  the  same  law  in  common.  Cedillas, 
edicts,  and  decrees  were  issued  to  them  from  a  common  source, 
to  be  executed  under  similar  circumstances,  or  on  particular 
occasions  when  local  conditions  demanded  such  action.  The  great 
code  of  1680,  the  Recopilacion  de  leyes  de  los  Reinos  de  las  Indias, 
has  already  been  described  as  containing  laws,  both  general  and 
particular,  for  the  regulation  of  the  colonial  audiencias.40 


Jerusalem,  and  later  to  the  Spaniards  who  contributed  alms  to  aid  in 
the  war  against  the  Africans.  It  was  called  cruzada  because  the  soldiers 
wore  crosses  as  emblems  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  462).  Funds  for  this 
purpose  were  raised  in  the  Philippines,  paid  into  the  insular  treasury 
and  deducted  from  the  subsidy  at  Acapulco  (Recopilacion,  1-20-24).  As 
noted  above,  an  oidor  acted  as  asesor  of  these  funds  (ibid.,  2-16-23). 

39  Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  Politica  Indiana.  II,  271-279. 

4»  The  first  attempt  at  the  codification  of  the  laws  for  the  governing 
of  the  colonies  was  made  in  New  Spain  in  1545,  when  the  ordinances 
for  the  government  of  that  viceroyalty  and  audiencia  were  printed.  This 


26  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

In  the  foregoing  paragraphs  attention  has  been  directed 
briefly  to  the  relations  of  the  audiencias  and  executives  with 
each  other,  and  with  the  central  government.  Some  notice  at 
least  should  be  given  to  the  means  by  which  the  will  of  the 
executive  and  judiciary  was  enforced  and  executed  upon  and  in 
the  local  units,  the  provinces  and  towns.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  offices  of  the  corregidores,  alcaldes  mayores  and  the 
alcaldes  ordinarios  developed  in  Spain,  the  first  with  jurisdiction 
over  the  larger  districts,  the  alcaldes  mayores  over  the  smaller 
areas  and  large  towns,  and  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  in  the  munici 
palities.  In  a  general  sense,  this  system  was  carried  into  the  colo 
nies  ;  the  corregidores  and  alcaldes  mayores  were  in  charge  of  the 


collection  was  given  the  royal  approval  in  1548.  A  similar  compilation 
was  made  in  Peru  in  1552  by  Viceroy  Mendoza.  The  first  intimation  of 
a  universal  code  is  to  be  found  in  the  recommendations  of  the  fiscal  of 
the  Council  of  the  Indies,  Francisco  Hernandez  de  Liebana,  in  1552. 
On  September  4,  1560,  Luis  Velasco,  viceroy  of  New  Spain,  was  ordered 
to  print  a  compilation  of  laws  for  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico.  This  com 
mission  was  given  to  Oidor  Puga  of  that  tribunal  and  executed  in  1563. 
In  1569  Viceroy  Francisco  Toledo  was  ordered  to  make  a  similar  com 
pilation  for  Peru,  but  the  work  was  not  completed  at  that  time.  The 
first  volume  actually  printed  by  authority  of  the  Council  was  accom 
plished  in  1593.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  code  of  the  Indies,  but 
the  volume  which  was  published  pertained  only  to  the  regimen  of  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  itself,  and  made  no  regulations  for  the  colonies. 
A  more  extensive  collection  of  provisions,  letters,  orders  and  ccdulas 
was  published  on  the  authority  of  the  Council  by  Diego  de  Encinas,  a 
clerk  of  that  tribunal,  in  1596.  In  1603,  the  Ordcnanzas  roalcs  para  la 
Casa  de  Contratacwn  de  Sevilla  y  para  otras  cosas  de  las  Indies  were 
printed  in  the  same  city.  Another  ordinance  was  published  for  the 
regulation  of  the  contaduria  mayor. 

Various  compilations  were  made  by  the  oidores  from  time  to  time, 
either  for  their  own  use,  or  in  compliance  with  the  royal  commands. 
Among  the  latter,  perhaps  the  most  famous  and  certainly  the  most, 
useful  was  that  of  Juan  de  Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  oidor  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Peru  and  later  a  member  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  This  collection 
was  made  at  Lima  in  compliance  with  the  commission  ot  Philip  IV, 
issued  in  1610.  The  work,  consisting  of  six  volumes,  received  the 
stamp  of  royal  approval  on  July  3,  1627.  In  1623  Leon  Pinelo  published 
a  Discurso  sobrc  la  importancia.  forma,  y  disposicion  dc  la  recopilacion 
de  Icyes  de  Indias.  On  April  19  of  that  year  Pinelo  was  ordered  to 
make  an  examination  of  all  the  existing  laws  and  ct'dulas  relative  to  the 
government  of  the  colonies,  printed  or  in  manuscript,  with  a  view  to 
codification.  A  magistrate  named  Aguilar  y  Acufia  was  ordered  to 
collaborate  with  him.  The  result  of  these  proceedings  was  a  Sumario 
de  la  Rccopilacion  General,  which  continued  under  process  of  compila- 


Provincial  Administration  27 

large  provinces  and  districts,  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  were  the 
judges  of  the  Spanish  towns. 

Much  the  same  intercourse  and  relations  existed  between 
these  officials  in  the  colonies  as  had  been  characteristic  of  the 
similar  ones  of  Spain.  But  there  were  some  differences:  while 
in  Spain  the  alcaldes  were  in  most  cases  city  judges,  subject  to 
the  corregidores,41  in  the  colonies  there  was  little  or  no  difference 
between  alcaldes  mayores  and  corregidores.  They  were  most 
frequently  appointed  by  the  executive,  sometimes  independently, 
sometimes  by  the  assistance  and  advice  of  the  audiencia,  as 
judges  and  governors  of  the  provinces,  although  the  laws  of  the 
Indies  provided  for  their  appointment  by  the  king.  The  practice 
developed  of  designating  them  locally,  and  of  sending  their  names 
to  Spain  for  confirmation.  Each  alcalde  mayor  or  corregidor 
resided  at  the  chief  town  of  his  province  and  combined  in  himself 
the  functions  of  judge,  inspector  of  encomiendas,  administrator 
of  hacienda-  and  police,  collector  of  tribute,  vicepatron  and  cap 


tion  for  a  half  century.  It  was  finally  perfected  and  published  in  1677. 
In  1668  Pinelo's  work  was  issued  as  the  Autos  acordados  y  dccretos  de 
goMerno  del  Real  y  Supremo  Conscjo  de  las  Indian. 

Although  the  collection  was  practically  ready  by  1677,  it  was  not 
officially  accepted  until  May  18,  1680.  On  that  day  it  was  promulgated 
by  Charles  II,  king  of  Spain.  On  November  1,  1681,  the  work  was 
ordered  published  by  the  India  House,  and  the  Recopiladon  de  los 
Rcynos  de  Indias  was  issued  at  Madrid  in  four  volumes.  Subsequent 
editions  were  printed  in  1754,  1774,  1791  and  1841.  The  last-mentioned 
contains  in  its  index  reforms  down  to  1820.  A  Rccopilacion  Sumaria 
was  published  in  Mexico  in  two  volumes  in  1787.  The  compilations  of 
Zamora  y  Coronado,  Rodriguez  San  Pedro  and  Perez  y  Lopez,  cited 
repeatedly  in  this  work,  contain  later  laws,  and  serve  in  the  place  of 
the  Rccopilacion  for  the  more  recent  periods. 

Authorities:  Solorzano  y  Pereyra,  Politico,  Indiana.  I,  Introduction; 
G.  B.  Griffin,  "A  brief  bibliographical  sketch  of  the  Recopilacion  de 
Indias"  in  Historical  Society  of  Southern  California,  Publications, 
1887;  Fabie,  Ensayo  historico  de  la  legislation  espanola:  Puga,  Pro- 
visiones,  cedulas,  (1563);  Garcia  Icazbalceta,  Bibliografia  Mexicana 
del  siglo  XVI,  (1886),  25-26;  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  550- 
5511;  History  of  Central  America,  I,  225-288;  Antequera,  Historia  de  la 
legislation  espanola,  480-483. 

41  Altamira,  Historia,  IV,  165-166. 


28  The  Audiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

tain-general.12  He  was  assisted  by  officials  of  a  minor  category, 
frequently  natives,  who  exercised  jurisdiction  over  their  fellows. 
The  law  also  provided  for  a  teniente  letrado  to  assist  the  alcalde 
or  corregidor,**  but  in  the  Philippines  there  was  no  such  official, 
except  at  irregular  intervals  in  the  Visayas. 

These  chiefs  of  provinces  were  responsible  to  the  audiencias 
in  matters  of  justice  and  to  the  viceroys  or  captains-general  in 
administrative  affairs.  In  Indian  relations  and  in  questions 
involving  encomiendas  they  were  subject  to  the  executive,  who 
had  jurisdiction  in  first  instance,  with  appeal  to  the  audiencia. 
The  tribunal  could  grant  encomiendas  in  default  of  the  regu 
larly  appointed  executive.  In  financial  matters  the  corregidores 
and  alcaldes  mayores  were  responsible  to  the  executive,  but 
they  acted  as  the  agents  of  the  treasury  officials  (oficiales  realcs) 
in  the  collection  of  the  revenue.  In  their  provinces  they  super 
vised  the  building  of  ships,  the  construction  of  roads  and  bridges, 
the  repartimientos  or  polos4*  of  Indians,  and  the  planting  of 
tobacco  when  the  tobacco  monopoly  existed  in  the  Philippines. 
In  these  matters  they  were  responsible  to  the  governor,  viceroy, 
or  superintendent,  and  to  the  various  juntas  reales  and  com 
mittees,  of  which  at  least  one  oidor  was  always  a  member. 

Tributes  from  the  Indians,  tithes  from  the  encomcnderos 
and  other  kinds  of  local  taxes  were  collected  by  the  alcaldes 
mayores  and  corregidores.  Acting  for  the  vicepatron,  these 
officials  represented  the  subdelegated  authority  of  the  king  over 
the  monasteries  and  churches  of  their  provinces.  They  officiated 
at  the  formal  bestowal  of  benefices,  they  were  expected  to  main- 


42  Recopilacion,  5-2-2,  3,  7,  15,  19,  28.  In  this  case  a  local  military 
functionary. 

*3  Ibid..  37,  39,  41;  Moses,  Establishment  of  Spanish  Rule  in  America, 
83-84;  Vander  Linden,  L' 'expansion  coloniale  de  I'Espagne,  345-361. 

«  Repartimientos  or  polos;  referring  to  the  forced  labor  of  natives 
on  public  works,  such  as  ship  and  road-building.  The  provincial  officials 
exercised  supervision  over  this  obligatory  service,  and  were  held  respon 
sible  for  the  proper  execution  of  the  laws  appertaining  thereto  (Blair 
and  Robertson,  The  Philippine  Islands  [hereinafter  cited  as  Blair  and 
Robertson],  XIX,  71-76). 


Provincial  Administration  29 

tain  harmonious  relations  with  the  priests  and  friars  in  their 
provinces,  and  to  check,  by  their  personal  presence  and  interven 
tion,  if  necessary,  any  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  churchmen  to 
abuse  the  Indians  or  to  impose  upon  them. 

In  like  manner  they  were  supposed  to  prevent  the  ecclesiasti 
cal  judges  from  exceeding  their  power,  and  particularly  from 
transgressing  the  royal  jurisdiction,  which  frequently  occurred 
in  the  earlier  years  when  that  authority  had  not  become  clearly 
denned  or  firmly  established.  As  the  churchmen  with  whom 
these  officials  had  to  deal  derived  their  authority  from  the 
higher  prelates  and  the  provincials  of  the  orders  and  often 
acted  by  their  direction,  their  opposition  to  the  local  officials 
of  the  civil  government  was  frequently  so  effective  that  the 
latter  were  obliged  to  appeal  to  the  audiencia.  The  latter 
tribunal  had  the  power  necessary  to  deal  with  these  cases,  and 
to  restrain  the  offending  churchmen,  by  bringing  pressure  to 
bear  upon  their  prelates  and  superiors. 

The  provincial  governors  also  had  certain  military  duties. 
In  the  northern  provinces  of  New  Spain  they  had  charge  of 
defense,  with  responsibility  to  the  viceroy.45  In  the  Philip 
pines,  however,  and  in  certain  parts  of  New  Spain,  where  the 
captain-general  took  the  place  of  the  viceroy,  alcaldes  mayores 
and  corrcgidores  acted  as  lieutenants  of  the  captains-general, 
exercising  authority  of  a  military  character.46  They  were  re 
quired  to  defend  their  provinces  and  districts  against  invasions, 
insurrections,  Indian  outbreaks,  and  disturbances.  They  were 


45  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  gobernadores  dc  Durango.      (1591-1700), 
Archivo   de  Indias,   Seinlla,    [hereinafter   cited  as  A.    I.,]    66-6-17,    18 
(these   numbers    refer    to   archive    place);    Cartas    y    Expedientes    del 
Virrey  de  Megico  que  tratan  de  asuntos  dc  Guadalajara   (1698-1760), 
A.  I.,  67-2-10  to  13.     These  two  series  contain  hundreds  of  letters  on 
this  subject,  as  do  other  series,  relating  to  Nuevo  Leon,  Nueva  Galicia, 
Nueva  Vizcaya,  and  New  Mexico. 

46  This  was  true  of  San  Luis  Potosf  and  Guadalajara  in  New  Spain. 
See  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  520;  History  of  Central  America, 
I,  297;  Moses,  Establishment  of  Spanish  rule  in  America,  '83. 


30  The  Ajidiencias  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 

authorized  to  impress  men  for  military  service.  Local  conditions 
in  Mexico,  Peru,  Central  America,  and  the  Philippines  caused 
some  differentiation  in  these  matters.  This  description  will  serve 
to  convey  an  impression  of  the  nature  of  the  duties  of  these 
officials  and  the  way  in  which  they  acted  as  the  agents  of  the 
captain-general,  viceroy,  and  audiencia.47 

It  has  been  already  pointed  out  that  the  alcaldes  may  ores  and 
corregidores  had  extensive  judicial  duties ;  a  mere  restatement  of 
that  important  fact  will  suffice  at  this  time.  In  subsequent 
chapters  we  shall  study  in  detail  numerous  illustrations  and 
instances  of  the  judicial  functions  of  the  provincial  judges.  It 
has  been  noted  also  that  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  were  the  judges 
of  the  Spanish  towns.  So  they  were  in  the  Philippines,  but,  as 
there  were  only  four  or  five  Spanish  towns  in  the  archipelago, 
the  alcaldes  ordinarios  do  not  assume  great  prominence  in  this 
study.  These  alcaldes  were  usually  chosen  by  the  ayuntamientos 
(municipal  councils),  though  they  were  appointed  on  some 
occasions  by  the  governors.  As  the  Spanish  towns  enjoyed 
special  privileges  conferred  by  the  king,  their  judges  were  not  a 
part  of  the  regular  judicial  hierarchy,  but  were  dependent  on 
their  ayuntamientos  or  the  governor.  However,  an  oidor  was 
usually  delegated  to  inspect  the  work  of  the  alcalde  ordinario. 


47  Bancroft  (History  of  Central  America,  I,  297)  defines  the  correg- 
iclor  as  a  magistrate  with  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  in  the  first 
instance,  and  gubernatorial  inspection  in  the  political  and  economic 
government  of  all  the  towns  of  the  district  assigned  to  him.  There  were 
corregidores  letrados  (learned  in  the  law),  corregidores  politicos  (polit 
ical  and  administrative),  de  capa  y  espada  (military)  and  politiaos  y 
militares  (administrative  and  military).  When  the  corrcyidor  was  not 
a  lawyer  by  profession,  unless  he  had  an  ascsor  of  his  own,  the  alcalde 
mayor,  if  possessed  of  legal  knowledge,  became  his  advisor,  which 
greatly  increased  the  importance  of  the  last-mentioned  official.  The 
alcalde  mayor  was  appointed  by  the  king.  It  was  required  that  he 
should  be  a  lawyer  by  profession,  twenty-six  years  of  age,  and  of  good 
character.  Practically,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  when  the  governor  was 
not  a  letrado,  civil,  criminal,  and  some  phases  of  military  authority  de 
volved  on  the  alcalde  mayor;  the  first  two  ex-officio,  and  the  latter  as 
the  legal  advisor  of  the  military  chief.  In  new  colonies  this  officer  was 
invested  with  powers  almost  equal  to  those  of  the  governor. — See  Re- 
copilacion,  5-2. 


Conclusion  31 

With  this  introductory  view  of  the  general  field  of  Spanish 
colonial  administration,  and  this  presentation  of  the  characters 
and  elements  which  are  to  assume  important  roles  in  this  dis 
cussion  because  of  their  frequent  relations  with  the  audiencia, 
we  may  enter  upon  a  more  detailed  study  of  a  single  institution. 
It  has  been  emphasized  especially  that  the  audiencia  in  the 
Philippines  was  only  an  integral  part  of  the  governmental 
machinery  used  in  the  colonial  empire  of  Spain.  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  we  are  not  studying  an  isolated  tribunal,  for 
every  royal  cedula  promulgated  to  the  Philippine  audiencia 
was  in  some  way  related  to  those  issued  to  ten  or  eleven  other 
audiencias  of  equal  status  or  similar  character.  Although  the 
Philippines  were  apart  physically,  this  institution,  with  its  rela 
tion  to  the  provincial  and  colonial  governments  on  one  hand,  and 
the  home  government  on  the  other,  brought  the  colony  as  close 
as  possible  to  Spain,  and  to  the  other  colonies. 

It  is  certain  that  the  growth  of  audiencias  was  a  part,  not 
only  of  colonial,  but  of  Spanish  historical  and  institutional  de 
velopment.  These  institutions  served  the  same  purpose  in  the 
colonies  that  they  accomplished  in  Spain ;  they  were  utilized  for 
the  administration  of  justice,  and  to  check  the  excesses  and 
abuses  of  officials.  They  were  important  because  they  facilitated 
a  greater  degree  of  centralization.  They  converged  the  provin 
cial,  colonial,  intercolonial  and  home  governments  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  audiencias  in  Spain  brought  about  unity  in  pro 
vincial  and  national  judicial  administration. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA  OF 
MANILA   (1583-1598). 

The  conditions  which  determined  the  establishment  of  an 
audiencia  in  the  Philippines  differed  little,  if  at  all,  from  those 
in  Spain's  other  colonies.  All  of  Spain's  dependencies  were 
situated  at  great  distances  from  the  mother  country;  the  Philip 
pines  were  farther  away  than  any.  Furthermore,  the  Philip 
pines  were  isolated  and  could  not  be  successfully  maintained,  if 
dependent  on,  or  identified  with  any  other  colony;  distance  and 
other  factors  which  we  shall  note  made  undesirable  and  im 
practicable  a  continuance  of  established  relations  with  New 
Spain.  If,  however,  the  governor  of  the  Philippines  came  to  be 
almost  absolute  in  his  authority,  his  absolutism  differed  in  de 
gree  rather  than  in  kind  from  that  of  the  governors  and  viceroys 
of  other  colonies.  The  contiguity  of  China  and  Japan,  the  con 
stant  danger  of  military  invasion  and  naval  attack  by  outside 
enemies  and  the  dependence  of  the  colony  on  the  commerce  of 
China  also  made  the  case  of  the  Philippines  somewhat  different 
from  that  of  the  colonies  in  America.  In  general,  the  situation 
in  the  Philippines  called  for  a  distinct  audiencia  with  the  same 
powers  and  functions  as  were  exercised  by  the  audiencias  of 
the  other  colonies. 

A  system  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  Philippines 
had  been  definitely  established  and  organized  before  the  audi 
encia  was  inaugurated  in  1584.  Many  prominent  features  of  the 
judicial  and  administrative  systems  of  Spain  and  America  had 
been  already  introduced  into  the  Islands.  At  the  head  of  both 
judicial  and  administrative  affairs  was  the  governor  and  captain - 
general,  who  was  practically  absolute,  and  whose  authority  was 


Establishment  of  the  First  Audiencia  49 

tions.  Although  the  audieneia  was  subsequently  abolished  for 
a  few  years,  it  was  re-established  in  1598  and  these  articles  were 
again  utilized.  It  is  therefore  worth  while  to  notice  the  most 
important  provisions  of  the  law  of  establishment,  which  was 
to  serve  as  a  foundation  for  the  audieneia  during  a  period  of 
approximately  three  hundred  years.  The  first  thirty-eight  sec 
tions  were  devoted  to  the  creation  of  the  tribunal,  to  a  defini 
tion  of  its  jurisdiction  over  civil  and  criminal  cases,  and  to  a 
determination  of  the  proper  method  of  procedure  in  them.  The 
audieneia  was  to  have  authority  to  try  cases  of  appeal  from 
gobernadores,  alcaldes  mayores,  and  other  magistrates  of  the 
provinces;  it  also  had  jurisdiction  over  civil  cases  appealed 
from  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  of  the  city  and  original  jurisdic 
tion  over  all  criminal  cases  arising  within  five  leagues  of  the 
city  of  Manila.  Appeals  were  to  be  tried  by  revista  (review) 
before  the  tribunal.  Cases  of  first  instance  (vista)  were  not  to 
be  tried  in  the  tribunal,  excepting  those  to  which  the  govern 
ment  was  a  party,  or  the  above-mentioned  criminal  cases.  The 
judgment  of  the  audieneia  was  usually  to  be  final  in  ordinary 
sruits,  and  always  in  criminal  cases.  Those  involving  the  gov 
ernment,  and  civil  suits  exceeding  a  certain  value  were  appeal 
able  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Notice  of  appeal  to  the  latter 
tribunal  had  to  be  served  within  one  year  after  the  objection 
able  decision  was  rendered,  and  the  party  appealing  the  case 
was  obliged  to  post  financial  bonds  covering  the  expenses  of 
suit  in  case  the  final  judgment  were  not  favorable  to  him.  The 
decision  of  the  audieneia  was  to  be  executed  in  all  cases,  even 
though  an  appeal  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  had  been  made. 
The  procedure  followed  in  the  chanceries  of  Yalladolid  arid  Gra 
nada  was  to  be  enforced  in  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  except  when 
the  contrary  was  especially  ordered.  Investigations  might  be 
made  by  one  judge,  but  the  concurrence  of  two  was  necessary 
for  all  decisions  involving  the  reversal  of  a  former  judgment, 
or  in  cases  wherein  a  certain  amount  was  at  stake.  In  the  latter 


50  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

case,  an  assistant  judge  might  be  chosen  from  outside  the  au- 
diencia  to  assist  the  regular  magistrate. 

The  audiencia  was  forbidden  to  act  alone  in  the  selection 
of  judges  of  residencies  or  pesquisidores;  it  was  commanded  not 
to  interfere  with  governors  of  provinces,  but  it  had  the  right, 
when,  charges  had  been  made  by  private  individuals,  to  con 
duct  investigations  of  governors'  official  conduct.  The  audi 
encia  was  empowered  to  investigate  the  judges  of  provinces. 
Magistrates  were  forbidden  to  hear  cases  affecting  themselves 
or  their  relatives,  and  when  a  case  involving  more  than  one 
thousand  pesos  was  before  the  tribunal,  and  no  oidor  was  eligi 
ble  to  try  it,  an  alcalde  ordinario  might  serve  in  the  place  of  a 
regular  magistrate,  with  appeal  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
Criminal  charges  against  the  oidores  were  to  be  tried  by  the 
president,  with  the  assistance,  if  need  be,  of  such  alcaldes 
ordinarios  as  the  latter  might  select.  No  relative  of  the  presi 
dent  or  of  an  oidor  could  be  appointed  legally  to  a  corregidor- 
ship  or  to  an  encomienda.  Oidores  were  eligible  for  appoint 
ment  by  the  president  from  time  to  time  to  inspect  the  admin 
istration  of  justice  and  government  in  the  provinces. 

Oidores  were  forbidden  to  receive  fees  from  or  to  act  as  ad 
vocates  for  any  private  person,  and  they  could  not  hold  income- 
yielding  estates  in  arable  land  or  cattle.  Oidores  were  forbidden 
to  engage  in  business,  either  singly  or  in  partnership,  nor  could 
they  avail  themselves  of  the  compulsory  services  of  Indians 
under  pain  of  deprivation  of  office.  Any  person  could  bring 
suit  against  an  oidor.  As  noted  above,  such  cases  would  either 
be  tried  by  the  president  or  by  an  alcalde  ordinario  on  the  presi 
dent's  designation.  Such  cases  might  be  appealed  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies. 

The  audiencia,  according  to  the  terms  of  its  establishment, 
had  extensive  authority  over  matters  of  government.  In  case 
of  the  death  or  incapacity  of  the  president,  the  audiencia  was 
to  assume  control  of  affairs,  the  senior  oidor  filling  the  post  of 


Regulations  for  the  Audiencia  51 

president  and  captain-general,  with  special  charge  over  military 
matters.  Under  such  circumstances  the  administrative  and  ex 
ecutive  functions  were  to  be  administered  by  the  audiencia  as 
a  body.  The  governor,  who  was  also  president  of  the  audiencia, 
was  ordered  to  make  a  complete  report  annually  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies  on  the  state  of  the  government  and  the  finances 
of  the  colony,  including  an  account  of  the  gross  income  and  ex 
penditures,  a  survey  of  conditions  of  the  en&omiendas  and  cor- 
rcgimientos,  as  well  as  a  report  on  the  conduct  of  officials,  includ 
ing  oid-ores.  In  fact,  all  matters  that  came  regularly  under  the 
care  of  the  executive  were  to  be  covered  in  the  annual  report 
of  the  governor  and  captain-general  of  the  Islands. 

The  president  was  empowered  to  delegate  the  oidores,  in 
turn,  to  make  tours  of  inspection  in  the  provinces.  The  mag 
istrates,  as  visitors,  were  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  serv 
ice  rendered  by  the  alcaldes  mayores  in  the  administration  of 
government  and  justice.  They  were  to  note  the  state  of  the  towns 
and  their  needs,  the  means  taken  for  the  construction  and  preser 
vation  of  public  buildings,  and  the  condition  of  the  Indians  on 
the  encomiendas.  They  were  to  see  whether  they  were  faithfully 
and  efficiently  instructed  in  religion,  or  whether  they  were  per 
mitted  to  live  in  ignorance  and  idolatry.  Reports  were  to  be 
made  by  the  visitors  on  the  state  of  the  soil,  the  condition  of 
the  crops  and  harvests,  extent  of  mineral  wealth  and  timber  in 
the  provinces  under  investigation,  weights  and  measures,  and 
in  fact,  everything  that  had  to  do  with  the  general  welfare.  On 
these  trips  the  oidores  were  authorized  to  take  such  action  as 
they  felt  to  be  necessary.  Two  oidores  were  also  required  to 
make  weekly  inspections  of  the  prisons  of  the  colony. 

The  decree  of  establishment  also  directed  that  certain  phases 
of  ecclesiastical  affairs  should  claim  the  attention  of  the  audi 
encia.  The  chief  duty  of  the  tribunal  in  that  regard  was  to 
keep  the  ecclesiastical  judges  from  exceeding  their  authority, 
and  the  practices  of  the  audiencias  of  Spain  were  especially 


52          The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

prescribed  as  a  precedent  for  the  local  tribunal.  The  audiencia 
was  charged  with  supervision  over  the  assignment  of  benefices, 
and  especially  with  the  settlement  of  the  property  and  estates 
of  bishops  and  archbishops  who  died  in  the  Islands.  The  audi 
encia  was  ordered  to  permit  nothing  to  be  done  which  would 
be  in  prejudice  of  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  church. 
The  tribunal  was  instructed  to  assist  the  prelates  on  all  occa 
sions  when  they  petitioned  for  royal  aid.  It  was  also  to  see 
that  properly  accredited  bulls  were  read  and  applied  in  the 
Spanish  towns,  but  not  in  the  native  villages. 

As  noted  above,  suits  involving  the  royal  treasury  and  the 
collection  of  money  for  the  government  were  to  be  reviewed  and 
decided  before  any  other  that  might  come  up  in  the  royal  audi 
encia.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  fiscal  to  prosecute  these  cases  in 
the  interest  of  the  government.  At  the  beginning  of  each  year 
the  president  and  two  magistrates  were  to  audit  the  reports  of 
the  oficiales  reales,  and  if  these  reports  were  not  duly  and  prop 
erly  rendered,  the  salaries  of  these  officials  were  to  be  with 
held.  After  auditing  the  accounts  the  committee  was  to  count 
the  money  in  the  royal  treasury.  The  oidores  who  did  this  ex 
tra  work  were  to  receive  an  allowance  of  twenty-five  thousand 
maravedis  (about  56  pesos)  in  addition  to  their  regular  salaries. 
The  authorization  of  the  audiencia  was  necessary  for  the  pay 
ment  of  extraordinary  expenses  not  appearing  in  the  regular 
budget  and  these  disbursements  were  made  subject  to  the  later 
approval  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  audiencia  was  held 
responsible  in  these  matters  by  the  Council.  Full  reports  of 
expenditures  made  on  the  responsibility  of  the  audiencia  were  to 
be  made  to  the  Council,  and  the  oidores  were  held  accountable  in 
their  residencies  for  their  votes  cast  in  the  junta  or  acuerdo 
de  hacienda,  as  the  committee  was  called. 

The  audiencia  was  given  supervision  over  the  administra 
tion  of  the  estates  of  deceased  persons ;  it  was  to  examine  the 
accounts  of  executors  and  see  that  the  wills  of  the  deceased 


Functions  of  the  Audiencia  53 

were  faithfully  executed  and  that  all  was  done  in  accordance 
with  the  law.  For  this  purpose  an  oidor  was  delegated  each 
year  with  authority  to  dispose  of  these  cases  in  the  name  of  the 
audiencia.  In  a  subsequent  chapter  the  duties  and  activities 
of  this  administrador  or  juez  de  bienes  de  difuntos  will  be  en 
larged  upon. 

Considerable  space  in  this  decree  was  devoted  to  prescrib 
ing  the  rules  for  the  trial  of  cases  involving  Indians,  with  a 
view  to  securing  justice  both  in  their  administration  by  the  en- 
comendcros  and  in  the  supervision  which  the  alcaldes  may  ores 
exercised  over  the  encomenderos.  The  provision  was  made  that 
"our  said  president  and  oidores  shall  always  take  great  care  to 
be  informed  of  the  crimes  and  abuses  which  are  committed 
against  the  Indians  under  our  royal  crown,  or  against  those 
granted  in  encomiendas  to  other  persons  by  the  governors."  The 
audiencia  was  directed  to  exercise  care  that  "the  said  Indians 
shall  be  better  treated  and  instructed  in  our  Holy  Catholic  Faith, 
as  our  free  vassals." 

The  audiencia  was  required  to  exercise  care  that  suits  in 
volving  Indians  were  neither  lengthy  nor  involved,  that  deci 
sions  were  reached  promptly  and  without  unnecessary  litigation, 
and  that  the  rites,  customs,  and  practices  to  which  the  Indians 
had  alwrays  been  accustomed  should  be  continued  in  so  far  as  was 
practicable.  The  audiencia  and  the  bishop  were  to  see  that  there 
was  a  person  appointed  in  each  village  to  give  instruction  in  re 
ligion.  Alcaldes  may  ores  wrere  ordered  not  to  dispossess  native 
chiefs  of  their  rule  or  authority ;  they  were,  on  the  contrary,  to 
appeal  cases  involving  them  without  delay  to  the  audiencia,  or 
to  the  visiting  oidor.  The  audiencia  was  to  devote  two  days  a 
week  to  hearing  suits  to  which  Indians  were  parties.  Encomen 
deros  were  to  be  protected  by  the  audiencia  in  the  possession 
of  their  encomiendas. 

A  proportionate  amount  of  attention  in  this  cedula  is  devoted 
to  outlining  the  duties  of  the  fiscal,  who,  from  many  points  of 


54  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

view,  was  the  most  important  official  directly  connected  with 
the  tribunal.  It  was  his  function  to  appear  as  prosecutor  for 
the  government  in  all  cases  tried  before  the  audiencia,  and  he 
was  forbidden  to  serve  as  the  advocate  of  any  private  per 
son  during  his  term  of  office.  He  should  devote  his  attention 
especially  to  matters  involving  the  exchequer.  He  was  to  prose 
cute  all  cases  of  appeal  from  the  alcaldes  mayores  and  corregi- 
dores  on  behalf  of  the  government,  and  "he  was  to  take  care  to 
assist  and  favor  poor  Indians  in  the  suits  that  they  have,  and 
to  see  that  they  are  not  oppressed,  maltreated,  or  wronged." 
The  fiscal,  ordinarily,  was  not  to  prosecute  unless  it  were  on  the 
complaint  of  some  person,  but  in  cases  of  notorious  injustice, 
or  when  judicial  inquiry  was  being  made,  he  could  take  the  in 
itiative  on  his  own  account.  It  was  his  duty  to  perform  any 
and  all  legal  acts  which  were  consistent  with  his  position,  and 
which  were  designed  to  bring  about  justice  or  to  secure  the  royal 
interests. 

The  remaining  sections  of  this  decree,  and,  in  fact,  the  greater 
part  of  it,  are  devoted  to  establishing  the  duties  of  the  fiscal 
and  the  minor  officials  of  the  audiencia,  to  fixing  a  tariff  of  fees 
to  be  charged  for  notarial  and  other  legal  work  and  to  the  de 
termination  of  other  matters  which  are  of  no  great  consequence 
to  the  purposes  of  this  chapter. 

Among  the  minor  officials  attached  to  the  audiencia  were 
the  alguacil  mayor  and  his  two  deputies.  These  were  to  act  as 
the  executive  officers  of  the  court  and  were  empowered  to  make 
arrests,  serve  papers  and  execute  similar  functions.  Their  du 
ties,  as  a  whole,  were  much  like  those  of  the  English  or  Ameri 
can  constable  or  sheriff.  They  might  arrest,  on  their  own  initi 
ative,  persons  whom  they  caught  in  crime,  as,  for  example,  those 
playing  forbidden  games  of  chance,  or  indulging  in  immoral 
practices,  typical  particularly  of  the  Chinese.  The  alguacil  was 
responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  the  prison  of  the  audiencia ; 


Inauguration  55 

for  this  purpose  he  could  appoint  a  certain  number  of  jail-war 
dens. 

There  were  also  clerks  of  court  and  notaries,  chosen  by  royal 
appointment.  Their  duties  were  those  customarily  required 
of  such  officials,  not  differing  from  those  of  today.  The  audi- 
encia  likewise  had  official  reporters,  similar  to  the  court  report 
ers  of  the  present  day.  Advocates  and  attorneys  practicing 
before  the  audiencia  had  to  fulfill  certain  prescribed  require 
ments  in  regard  to  learning,  training,  and  general  ability.  Re 
ceivers,  bailiffs,  jail-wardens  and  interpreters  each  received 
their  due  amount  of  space  and  attention  in  this  cedula.  The 
interpreters  were  to  assist  the  Indians  who  were  defending 
themselves  in  a  Spanish-speaking  court.  Among  their  duties  was 
the  translation  of  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  of  the  questions 
of  attorneys  and  the  rulings  of  the  courts  into  the  native  dia 
lects,  or  into  the  Spanish  language,  as  the  circumstances  might 
require.  These  interpreters  were  also  required  to  assist  the 
natives  in  the  formulation  of  legal  documents.  All  these  minor 
officials  were  to  be  regulated  in  the  collection  of  fees  by  a  legal 
tariff.  Finally,  the  audiencia  was  provided  with  an  archive 
within  which  were  to  be  deposited  and  kept  the  great  seal  of 
the  government,,  and  all  official  papers,  including  records  of  cases 
and  official  acts. 

The  new  audiencia  having  been  provided  for,  Santiago  de 
Vera,  the  recently  appointed  governor  and  captain-general  of 
the  Islands  and  president  of  the  new  tribunal,  arrived  at  Ma 
nila  on  May  28,  1584.  In  accordance  with  the  new  law,  it  was 
his  duty  to  govern  the  Philippines  in  the  capacity  of  executive 
and  military  commander,  and  at  the  same  time  preside  over  the 
audiencia  in  its  respective  judicial,  advisory,  and  administra 
tive  capacities.  The  first  session  of  the  audiencia  was  held  on 
June  15,  1584. 25  The  new  tribunal  was  officially  brought  into 


56  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

being  with  much  pomp  and  ceremony,  including  a  procession  of 
the  president  and  magistrates  in  their  robes  of  office,  and  the 
celebration  of  divine  service  in  the  cathedral  by  the  bishop.  The 
president  and  each  of  the  oidores  subsequently  made  lengthy  re 
ports  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  on  the  inauguration  of  the 
tribunal. 

The  most  direct  and  striking  consequence  of  the  establish 
ment  of  the  audiencia  in  Manila  was  the  discord  which  it  engen 
dered  between  the  various  officials  and  functionaries  of  the  gov 
ernment.  Whereas,  before  the  inauguration  of  the  tribunal,  the 
chief  ill  of  the  colony  had  been  the  unrivaled  absolutism  and 
the  high-handed  proceedings  of  the  governor,  now,  with  the  di 
vision  of  power  newly  effected,  the  creation  of  new  depart 
ments,  and  the  checking  of  one  official  against  another,  strife  and 
contention  took  the  place  of  despotism. 

There  were  but  few  misunderstandings  between  the  oidores 
over  their  judicial  duties.  The  functions  of  the  audiencia,  as 
a  court,  were  clearly  denned  and  distinctly  understood.  Al 
though  appeals  were  made  from  the  audiencia  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies,  as  appeals  are  always  made  from  a  minor  court  to 
a  superior  tribunal,  there  was  little  dissatisfaction  with  the  body 
in  the  exercise  of  its  purely  legal  functions.  Its  value  in  pro 
tecting  the  natives  on  the  encomiendas  from  the  tyranny  of 
their  masters,  the  facility  rendered  to  the  administration  of 
justice  by  making  appeal  to  New  Spain  unnecessary,  and  the 
advantage  of  having  immediately  at  hand  a  tribunal  with  plen 
ary  powers  were  readily  recognized. 

The  chief  objection  to  the  tribunal  developed  as  a  result  of 
the  audiencia 's  interference  in  matters  of  government  and  ad 
ministration.  Disputes  arose  between  the  governor  and  the 
mdores,  and  among  the  oidores  themselves.  The  lack  of  experi 
ence  in  the  local  field  of  the  president  and  magistrates  may  have 
been  one  of  the  causes  of  the  unsatisfactory  conditions  imme 
diately  following  the  establishment  of  the  audiencia.  Another 


Dissension  57 

and  possibly  a  more  important  reason  lay  in  the  nature  and 
wording  of  the  articles  of  establishment.  A  certain  amount  of 
confusion  existed  in  the  minds  of  all  as  to  the  extent  of  power 
which  the  audiencia  should  have  in  governmental  and  ecclesiasti 
cal  affairs.  No  definite  distinction  had  been  drawn  between  the 
powers  of  the  president  and  those  of  the  oidores  in  matters  of 
government,  and  the  former  at  once  accused  the  latter  of  infring 
ing  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  executive.  The  oidores,  on  the 
other  hand,  claimed  that  their  advice  should  be  taken  in  all  mat 
ters  of  appointment,  defense,  patronage — both  ecclesiastical  and 
secular — finance,  commerce  and  interior  administration.  They 
began  to  intervene  actively  in  those  matters,  to  the  displeasure  of 
the  governor  and  treasury  officials.  All  the  oidores  as  well  as 
the  fiscal,  wrote  lengthy  memorials  and  reports  to  the  king,  offer 
ing  advice  on  this  affair  or  that,  and  criticising  the  governor, 
the  bishop,  and  the  oficiales  realcs  for  acts  done  within  their 
own  spheres  of  authority.  In  sending  these  reports  and  in  mak 
ing  these  suggestions,  the  magistrates  did  not  question  their  own 
authority  and  they  resented  exceedingly  the  objections  and 
charges  of  interference  by  those  concerned. 

An  illustration  may  be  noted  in  the  letter  written  on  July 
3,  1584,  by  Oidor  Melchoir  Davalos  to  the  king.  After  several 
clear  intimations  that  he  would  like  to  be  governor  in  case  a 
vacancy  should  arise  and  after  modestly  setting  forth  his  own 
qualifications  and  virtues,  Davalos  wrote  a  faithful  and  vivid  ac 
count  of  the  expeditions  which  had  been  made  recently  against 
the  Mohammedan  Sulus.  He  petitioned  for  a  suspension  of  the 
law  forbidding  slavery  in  order  that  Spaniards  might  avail 
themselves  of  captive  Moros  as  slaves.26  He  made  several  recom- 


2fi  Permission  had  been  granted  by  Philip  II  on  July  4,  1570,  to 
enslave  Mindanaos.  A  second  crdula  permitting  the  Spaniards  in  the 
Philippines  to  do  this  was  promulgated  by  Philip  III  on  May  29,  1620. 
This  act  was  rendered  justifiable  in  the  eyes  of  the  Spaniards  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  dealing  with  semi-savages  who  were  of  the 
Mohammedan  faith,  and  accordingly  the  ceaseless  enemies  of  the 
Spaniards.  Recopilacion.  6-2-12. 


58  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

mendations  in  regard  to  the  Chinese,  stating  particularly  that 
he  was  devoting  himself  to  a  study  of  the  kind  of  government 
best  fitted  for  the  Chinese  in  Manila.  He  complained  that  the 
Chinese  merchants  were  draining  the  Islands  of  silver,  bringing 
as  many  as  thirty-four  shiploads  of  Chinese  cargo  a  year.  Since 
nothing  of  commercial  value  was  produced  in  the  Philippines, 
they  could  take  away  nothing  else  than  silver.  This  incessant 
drain  on  the  coin  imported  from  Acapulco  was  resulting  in  the 
impoverishment  of  the  colony  and  constituted  a  source  of 
danger  to  New  Spain  as  well.  The  exportation  of  money  was 
contrary  to  royal  orders  and  distinctly  prejudicial  to  the  eco 
nomic  interests  of  the  realm.  Davalos  recommended  immediate 
action  in  the  matter.  He  then  discussed  military  affairs,  alleg 
ing  that  the  pay  of  the  soldiers  was  insufficient,  and  their  condi 
tion  miserable.  The  first  and  third  of  the  matters  touched  upon 
by  the  oidor  in  his  memorial,  namely,  the  war  in  Mindanao  and 
the  condition  of  the  soldiers,  belonged  to  the  private  jurisdiction 
of  the  governor  and  captain-general,27  the  control  of  the  Chinese 
coming  later  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor,  as  captain- 
general,  with  special  inhibition  of  the  interference  of  the  audi- 
encia.28 

This  letter  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  interference 
of  an  oidor  in  matters  of  government.  The  desire  to  interfere 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  confined  to  one  individual,  but  was 
apparently  characteristic  of  all  the  magistrates  of  the  audi- 
encia.29 

The  extensive  field  over  which  the  oidores  claimed  cognizance 
is  shown  by  a  series  of  memorials  which  were  sent  by  the  audi- 
encia  as  a  body  to  the  court  under  the  date  of  June  26,  1586. 30 
They  are  noted  here  because  they  illustrate  the  diversity  of  the 


27  Rccopilacion,  3-10-13,  14;    see  Chapter  VIII  of  this  book. 
ss  Recopilaci'm,    2-15-55,   promulgated   November   4,    1606;    see   also 
6-18-5  and  5-3-24. 

zv  Davalos  to  the  King,  July  3,  1584,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 

™  Audiencia  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  June  26,  1586,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 


Intervention  in  the  Government  59 

interests  of  the  oidorcs,  and  because  their  devotion  to  these  vari 
ous  matters  was  characterized  as  unjustified  meddling  by  the 
governor  and  the  other  opponents  of  the  audiencia.  The  con 
cern  which  the  oidores  manifested  in  the  miscellaneous  affairs 
of  government  constituted,  no  doubt,  an  indirect  reason  for  the 
temporary  removal  of  the  tribunal  in  1589. 

These  memorials  suggested  reform  in  many  departments  of 
government.  The  inadequate  state  of  defense  and  the  demoral 
ized  condition  into  which  the  garrison  had  fallen  was  the  subject 
of  one  letter.  Attention  was  called  to  the  necessity  of  obtaining 
more  funds  for  the  fortifications  of  the  Islands.  Reference  was 
made  to  the  continual  danger  of  Japanese  invasion.  Another 
letter  dealt  with  financial  affairs.  The  public  exchequer  was 
reported  to  be  in  bad  condition,  as  there  was  not  enough  money 
in  the  treasury  to  pay  the  expenses  of  government.  The 
oidores  recommended  that  their  own  salaries  should  be  paid  out 
of  the  treasury  of  Mexico.  They  suggested  an  increase  of  tribute 
as  a  means  of  securing  more  money.  This,  they  alleged,  could 
be  done  in  justice,  since  the  amount  of  tribute  paid  by  the  na 
tives  of  the  Philippines  did  not  equal  that  levied  upon  the  In 
dians  of  New  Spain.31  The  oidores  reported  an  increase  of  5000 


si  The  Recopilacion  is  singularly  indefinite  regarding  the  rate  or 
amount  of  tribute  to  be  assessed  in  New  Spain.  Beyond  the  stipulation 
that  tribute  levied  under  the  supervision  of  viceroys,  presidents,  and 
audiencias  should  be  moderate  and  just,  practically  nothing  is  said  as 
to  the  amount  that  should  be  collected  (See  cedillas  of  June  19,  1536, 
and  September  29,  1555,  Recopilacion,  6-5-21),  excepting  certain  in 
creases  as  stipulated  in  the  law  of  November  1,  1591  (ley  16). 

According  to  the  laws  just  cited,  the  rate  was  to  be  fixed  by  the 
officials  mentioned  above.  By  cedula  of  December  19,  1534,  the  oficiales 
reales  were  empowered  to  fix  the  rate  of  tribute  (ibid..  28).  Reduc 
tions  in  the  rate  of  tribute  were  to  be  authorized  by  the  fiscal  and 
oficiales  rcales  (ibid.,  29).  Apparently  the  rate  varied  according  to  the 
locality  (ibid.,  1  to  5,  16,  17),  and  in  the  ccdulas  of  1536  and  1555,  cited 
above,  consideration  was  given  to  the  rate  formerly  paid  by  the  Indians 
to  their  caciques.  Fonseca  y  Urrutia  (Historia  de  la  real  hacienda, 
I,  417  et  seq.)  tell  us  that  the  tribute  paid  in  the  province  of  Tlascala 
in  1572  was  13  reales;  in  1564  the  rate  for  New  Spain  was  fixed  at  two 
pesos,  and  in  1600  it  was  reduced  to  one  peso  of  eight  reales.  (Bancroft, 
History  of  Mexico,  II,  586-9.) 


60  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

pesos  in  the  revenues  of  the  colony  as  profits  from  the  sale  of 
certain  offices  which  had  formerly  been  bestowed  gratis  by  the 
governor  upon  his  friends,  the  righting  of  this  wrong  being  ef 
fected  through  the  influence  of  the  fiscal  and  oidores  who  offici 
ated  as  members  of  the  junta  de  hacienda. 

While  ostensibly  seeking  means  for  the  enlargement  of  the 
income  of  the  Islands,  as  noted,  the  oidores  protested  against 
a  recent  royal  order  which  had  required  that  the  proceeds  re 
turned  from  vacant  encomiendas  should  be  placed  in  the  public 
treasury.  They  objected  that  this  would  take  away  all  hope  of 
reward  from  soldiers  and  subjects  "who  have  served  your 
Majesty,  reducing  them  to  poverty,  with  no  means  of  support 


Humboldt  (Political  Essay,  II,  431-2)  states  that  there  had  been  a 
gradual  diminution  of  tribute  paid  by  the  Indians  during  the  hundred 
years  preceding  his  visit.  In  1601,  he  states,  Indians  paid  32  reales 
tribute  and  4  reales  additional,  de  scrv-icio,  in  all,  about  23  francs.  It 
had  been  reduced,  little  by  little,  till  the  amount  actually  paid  was 
from  5  to  15  francs,  and,  "in  the  greater  part  of  Mexico,"  he  states, 
"the  head-tax  amounts  to  11  francs." 

Archbishop  Benavides,  of  Manila,  writing  in  1600  (Zulueta  Papers, 
date  and  place  number  not  given)  pleaded  for  the  abolition  of  the  trib 
ute  in  the  Philippines,  stating  that  while  the  collection  of  tribute  in 
New  Spain  was  justifiable  because  the  natives  had  been  accustomed  to 
paying  tribute  before  the  Spaniards  came,  the  custom  was  entirely  new 
in  the  Philippines,  since  the  native  princes  had  never  levied  tribute. 
On  the  other  hand,  various  persons  writing  from  the  Philippines  at 
different  times  urged  that  the  tribute  there  should  be  increased  to 
the  rate  imposed  in  New  Spain. 

The  money  value  of  the  tribute  in  the  Philippines  was  fixed  at  eight 
rentes  by  Legaspi.  It  could  be  paid  either  in  gold  or  in  kind.  Morga 
tells  us  that  the  encomenderos  made  great  profit  by  receiving  the  pay 
ment  in  rice,  cotton,  cloth,  fowls,  and  other  commodities,  at  a  cheap 
rate,  selling  those  same  articles  later  to  the  improvident  natives  at 
greatly  increased  prices  (Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVI, 
159).  When  Dasmarinas  arrived  as  governor  in  1590,  the  tribute  was 
raised  from  eight  to  ten  reales  (cedula  of  August  9,  1589,  Recoinlacion. 
6-5-65,  also  A.  I.,  105-2-11).  While  the  eight  reales  were  to  be  appro 
priated  by  the  encomenderos,  the  additional  two  reales  were  to  be  dis 
tributed  between  the  religious  and  military  governments  in  proportions 
of  one-half  to  one  and  a  half  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XVI,  160). 

In  the  instructions  of  May  23,  1593,  to  Governor  Dasmarina,  refer 
ence  was  made  to  a  current  rate  of  eight  reales  (ibid.,  IX,  249),  so  it 
would  seem  that  the  local  rate  had  been  reduced  from  ten  to  eight 
reales  at  some  date  between  1589  and  1593.  On  February  16,  1602,  the 
rate  was  restored  at  ten  reales  (Recopilacion,  6-5-65),  and  was  so  con- 


The  Magistrates'  Interest  in  Trade  61 

after  a  long  career  of  service."32  In  other  words,  the  audiencia 
is  here  seen  registering  its  objections  to  the  conversion  of  pri 
vate  into  royal  encomiendas,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  this 
would  mean  greater  revenue  for  the  government.  The  incon 
sistency  of  this  attitude  was  pointed  out  by  Magistrate  Davalos 
in  his  letter  of  June  20,  1585.33 

Another  petition  wrhich  may  reflect  some  discredit  upon  the 
audiencia  was  one  which  asked  for  the  abolition  of  the  one  and 
one-half  per  cent  tax  on  imported  money,  and  for  the  elimina 
tion  of  the  three  per  cent  almojarifazgo.  Both  of  these  taxes 
bore  heavily  on  the  Chinese  and  on  the  Spanish  merchants  of 
Manila.  "These  two  taxes,"  wrote  the  oidores,  "are  drawing 
the  life-blood  from  the  Chinese,  who  would  otherwise  bring 
products  of  great  value  to  our  shores."  The  o-idorcs  had  com 
menced  this  memorial  by  showing  the  financial  needs  of  the 
colony.  They  had  requested  assistance  from  the  treasury  of 
Mexico,  yet,  in  the  same  communication,  they  proposed  to 
abolish  three  of  the  most  profitable  sources  of  colonial  revenue 
that  existed.  These  recommendations  not  only  illustrate  the 
wide  sphere  of  influence  of  the  magistrates,  but  they  also  seem 
to  confirm  'the  allegations  which  were  often  brought  against 
them,  charges,  indeed,  which  they  proffered  against  one  an 
other — that  each  wras  more  interested  in  trade  than  in  the  wel- 


tinued  until  a  subsequent  regulation  made  optional  on  the  part  of  the 
natives  the  payment  of  the  ten  realcs  or  four  realcs  and  a  fowl.  On 
August  19,  1623,  Fray  Juan  de  Balmaseda  complained  that  the  encom- 
emderos  were  making  the  natives  pay  ten  realcs  in  addition  to  the  fowl 
and  that  the  above  law  was  thus  resulting  in  the  payment  of  sixteen 
realcs  tribute  (A.  I.,  68-1-63).  Accordingly,  on  November  21,  1625,  a 
ccclula  was  issued  which  eliminated  the  substitution  of  the  fowl,  and  the 
rate  was  restored  at  ten  rcales,  payable  in  gold  or  silver  (A.  I.,  105-2-1). 
The  king,  in  response  to  complaints  against  the  collection  of  tributes 
in  the  provinces  of  Camarines  and  Albay,  issued  a  cedula  on  September 
25,  1697,  ordering  the  observance  in  the  Philippines  of  Book  6,  Title  5, 
of  the  Rccopilacion  de  Indifts,  which  meant  the  correction  of  the  abuse 
above  referred  to  (A.  I.,  68-4-12).  It  would  seem  that  the  rate  of  ten 
realcs  was  levied  throughout  the  seventeenth  century. 

32  Audiencia  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  June  26,  1586,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 

ss  Davalos  to  the  King,  June  20,  1585,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 


62  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

fare  of  the  government.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
economic  life  of  the  colony  depended  on  the  Chinese  trade,  the 
evidence  seems  to  indicate  that,  even  this  early  in  the  history 
of  the  tribunal,  its  magistrates  had  personal  interests  to  serve. 
In  the  letter  referred  to  above,  Davalos,  who  seems  to  have  been 
a  dissenting  party  to  all  these  proceedings,  charged  his  con 
temporaries  with  being  guilty  of  undue  mercantile  activity. 

In  this  same  memorial  the  oidores  warned  the  Council 
against  the  Portuguese  influence  in  China,  deploring  the  exist 
ence  of  Macao  as  a  rival  to  Manila  as  a  trade  emporium  in  the 
Orient.  The  audiencia  warned  the  court  against  the  influence 
and  operations  of  Pedro  Unamanu,  the  successor  to  Captain 
Gali,  who  had  gone  to  China  and  Macao,  supposedly  to  take  on 
a  cargo  of  Chinese  silks.  This  was  in  defiance  of  the  law  which 
forbade  Spaniards  to  trade  in  China,  and  it  was  also  contrary 
to  the  instructions  of  the  viceroy  and  audiencia  of  New  Spain. 
In  this  connection  the  o-idores  stated  that  they  had  recom 
mended  to  Governor  Santiago  de  Vera  that  Unamanu  should 
be  arrested  and  punished  for  diverting  his  voyage  in  the  in 
terests  of  private  trade.  In  accordance  with  the  advice  of  the 
tribunal  the  governor  had  sent  orders  to  Macao,  summoning  the 
leader  of  this  expedition  back  to  Manila ;  these  instructions, 
however,  the  governor  of  Macao  was  unable  to  fulfill.34 

This  memorial  shows  that  the  oidores  considered  it  to  be  their 
duty  to  inform  the  court  fully  as  to  the  part  which  the  audi 
encia  played  in  this  affair.  The  matter  at  hand  constituted  a 
question  of  disobedience  of  the  law,  and  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 
had  done  what  it  could  to  enforce  it.  The  tribunal  had  assumed 
a  role  quite  as  important  as  that  of  the  governor.  The  episode- 
shows  also  that  the  audiencia  was  consulted  by  the  governor  in 
this  matter,  which  wras  purely  governmental.  It  \vould  not  be 
unfair  to  suggest  that  a  potential  factor  in  stimulating  the 


Pereyra  to  Santiago  de  Vera,  July  10,  1597,  A.  I.,  68-1-33. 


Relations  With  the  Church  63 

aidorcs  and  merchants  of  Manila  to  prevent  the  voyage  of  Pedro 
Unamaiiu  or  the  Portuguese  to  China  for  trading  purposes 
must  have  been  the  desire  to  safeguard  the  Spanish  interests  in 
the  Chinese  trade,  and  particularly  those  of  Manila,  which 
were  the  sole  reliance  of  the  colony.  It  was  essential  that  this 
commerce  should  be  prevented  from  falling  into  the  hands  of 
other  individuals  or  nations. 

This  memorial  also  dealt  with  ecclesiastical  affairs.  In  it 
was  set  forth  the  audiencia's  arguments  in  certain  contentions 
which  the  tribunal  had  had  with  the  bishop,  illustrating  the 
fact  that  the  audiencia  was  opposed  not  only  by  the  governor 
but  also  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  It  appears  that  the 
king  had  formerly  granted  to  the  church  courts  a  large  share 
of  temporal  jurisdiction  in  the  Islands.  This  former  concession 
now  stood  in  the  wray  of  the  royal  prerogative  and  caused  end 
less  conflicts  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  judges.  The 
audiencia  took  the  ground  that  by  virtue  of  its  own  establish 
ment  the  authority  of  the  church  courts  over  civil  matters  was 
at  an  end.  This  the  prelate  declined  to  admit.  Attention  was 
also  directed  by  the  audiencia  to  the  opposition  which  Bishop 
Salazar  had  manifested  toward  the  claims  advanced  by  the  civil 
government  for  extending  its  jurisdiction  over  all  the  non- 
Christian  tribes,  the  bishop  alleging  that  Pope  Alexander  VI 
had  ceded  authority  only  over  such  Indians  as  had  been  chris 
tianized.35 

In  truth,  the  bishop  had  found  after  two  years  of  conflict 
that  the  presence  of  the  audiencia  had  not  entirely  solved  the 
problems  of  administration,  but,  on  the  contrary,  had  increased 
the  complexity  of  many  of  them.  He  had  differed  seriously  with 
the  oidores  on  several  occasions.  The  ministers  had  opposed 
him  not  only  in  the  larger  questions  of  government  and  ecclesi 
astical  administration,  but  in  matters  of  ceremony  as  well.  This 


ss  This   involves   the   real  patronato,  which   will   be  dealt   with    in 
Chapter  X  of  this  book. 


64  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

was  more  than  the  prelate  could  endure.  He  appealed  some 
of  these  disputes  to  the  governor  and  that  official,  after  having 
neglected  these  matters  for  a  long  period,  finally  referred  them 
to  the  audiencia,  which  promptly  made  the  settlements  in  its 
own  favor.36 

Salazar's  influence  went  far  toward  bringing  about  the  re 
moval  of  the  tribunal,  as  it  had  helped  in  causing  its  establish 
ment  in  1584.  The  complaints  of  the  bishop  against  the  audi 
encia  brought  forth  a  royal  reprimand  for  carrying  on  con 
tinual  disputes  with  the  audiencia.  The  prelate  defended  him 
self  against  these  charges  in  a  memorial  dated  June  24,  1590. 37 
He  stated  that  these  petty  matters  of  form  and  ceremony  were 
of  no  great  consequence.  He  accused  the  governor  of  seeking 
to  stir  up  discord  between  him  and  the  audiencia.  As  a  mat 
ter  of  fact,  he  said,  the  relations  between  him  and  the  audi 
encia  were  far  more  harmonious  than  they  had  been  between 
the  tribunal  and  the  governor,  and  on  many  occasions  he  had 
been  called  in  to  settle  disputes  between  the  functionaries  of 
the  civil  government.  "It  is  well  known,"  he  wrote,  "within 
the  city  and  outside  of  it,  that  had  I  not  entered  as  mediator 
between  the  president  and  oidorcs  there  would  have  been  no 
peace.  It  would  not  have  been  possible  for  me  to  mediate  if 
there  had  not  been  friendly  relations  between  them  and  me."38 

The  unpopularity  of  the  audiencia  from  1584  to  1586  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  practically  all  the  authorities  in  Manila- 
mercantile,  ecclesiastical,  political,  and  even  the  magistrates 
themselves — united  in  recommending  its  recall.  On  June  26, 
1586,  a  series  of  petitions  was  directed  to  the  Council  from 
various  personages  and  organizations  of  the  city  asking  that 
the  audiencia  be  removed.  These  included  the  municipal 
cabildo,  the  bishop,  the  governor,  certain  military  officials,  and, 


se  Davalos  to  the  King,  June  20,  1585,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 

37  Memorial  of  Salazar,  June  24,  1590,  A.  I.,  67-6-67. 

38  ibid. 


Recall  Requested  65 

lastly,  several  oidores  (all,  in  fact,  excepting  Davalos).  These 
greatly  regretted  the  mistake  which  had  been  made  in  the 
establishment  of  the  audiencia,  conceded  that  it  had  been  a 
failure,  and  represented  that  the  financial  burden  which  its 
presence  had  imposed  had  been  too  great  for  the  colony  to 
bear.39  It  is  certain  that  the  continual  conflicts  which  had  re 
sulted  from  the  presence  of  the  audiencia  had  not  produced  a 
salutary  effect  on  the  government. 

The  audiencia  itself  wrote  to  the  Council  at  the  same 
time :  ' '  There  has  been  in  this  tribunal,  between  the  oidores 
and  the  president,  continual  misunderstandings  as  to  juris 
diction,  which  we  have  decided  to  submit  to  your  Majesty 
to  ascertain  whether  precedence  in  these  matters  belongs  to 
the  president  or  to  the  oidores,"  The  Manila  cabildo  recom 
mended 'the  re-establishment  of  the  governorship  with  central 
ized  authority :  the  power  to  grant  titles,  offices  and  encomien- 
das,  with  exclusive  authority  over  the  latter.  This  would  in 
clude  the  power  of  appointing  encomenderos  in  the  name  of  the 
king.  The  recommendation  was  made  by  the  cabildo  that  con 
sultative  authority  in  matters  of  government  should  be  con 
ferred  on  the  ecclesiastical  and  military  officials.  It  was  also 
suggested  that  a  defender  of  the  Indians  should  be  appointed 
other  than  the  fiscal,  for  the  latter,  by  nature  of  his  office,  was 
their  prosecutor  rather  than  their  defender.  It  was  the  current 
opinion,  this  memorial  went  on  to  state,  that  the  local  prelate 
should  be  restored  to  his  former  place  as  defender  of  the  In 
dians,  and  that  he  should  have  authority  to  dispossess  en 
comenderos,  if  necessity  for  such  action  arose. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  Oidor  Davalos  was  the  only 
official  of  importance  who  would  not  join  in  these  representa 
tions.  He  believed  that  the  audiencia  was  necessary  to  the 
prosperity  of  the  colony,  and  that,  if  properly  controlled,  it 


39  Memorials  of  the  organization  and  officials  of  Manila  for  the  re 
moval  of  the  royal  audiencia,  June  26,  1586,  A.  I.,  68-1-33. 


66  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

would  prove  beneficial.  He  believed,  moreover,  that  the  gover 
nor  was  the  chief  element  of  discord  in  the  colony,  and  that  his 
influence  had  rendered  inefficacious  the  efforts  of  the  audiencia 
to  keep  peace  and  to  enforce  the  laws.  In  a  letter  to  the  king,40 
just  a  year  before  the  memorial  described  above,  Davalos  had 
represented  Governor  Santiago  de  Vera  as  a  schemer,  aiming  to 
get  absolute  control  of  the  government.  De  Vera,  he  said,  had 
gone  so  far  as  to  influence  the  bishop  and  clergy  to  recommend, 
against  their  better  judgment,  the  abolition  of  the  audiencia. 
The  governor  realized  that  the  tribunal  was  the  one  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  the  fulfillment  of  his  designs  and  had  used  every 
possible  means  to  discredit  and  humiliate  the  audiencia  and  its 
magistrates.  Davalos  asserted  that  the  appeal  of  cases  to  Mex 
ico  would  inflict  great  inconvenience  on  the  people  of  Manila. 
He  renewed  the  argument  that  Spain  should  have  some  sov 
ereign  body  at  that  great  distance  from  the  mother  country. 
He  enlarged  on  the  future  possibilities  of  the  conquest  and  rule 
of  the  entire  Orient  by  Spain,  pointing  out  the  value  of  the 
Philippines  as  a  base  of  operations.  It  was,  therefore,  of  the 
greatest  importance  that  the  Islands  should  be  provided  with 
the  proper  sort  of  government. 

Davalos  was  especially  bitter  in  his  denunciation  of  Governor 
De  Vera,  who,  he  said,  had  even  resorted  to  force  in  order  to  in 
timidate  the  magistrates  and  had  called  a  council  of  military  offi 
cials  on  one  occasion  for  consultation  in  matters  of  justice  and 
government.  The  governor  was  accused  of  violating  the  laws 
which  had  forbidden  officials  to  hold  encomiendas ;  he  had  given 
the  best  posts  in  the  government  to  relatives,  and  had  completely 
set  aside  the  judgments  which  Davalos  had  rendered  in  his 
capacity  as  juez  y  administrador  de  l)ienes  de  difuntos.  The 
audiencia  had  been  powerless  to  oppose  De  Vera,  largely, 
Davalos  inferred,  because  a  majority  of  the  magistrates  were 
under  his  influence. 


40  Davalos  to  the  King,  June  20,  1585,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Governor  67 

However  unfavorable  were  the  above  comments  on  the  gov 
ernor,  the  picture  which  De  Vera  drew  of  himself  in  a  letter 
to  Archbishop  Contreras,41  at  that  time  viceroy  of  New  Spain, 
is  exceedingly  interesting  by  way  of  contrast.  In  his  own 
words,  the  governor  had  grown  "old  and  worn"  in  his 
Majesty's  service.  According  to  him,  the  audiencia  was  of  110 
service  to  the  government,  and  only  a  drawback,  making  his 
own  duties  as  governor  doubly  heavy,  especially  "since  the 
Council  [of  the  Indias]  so  poorly  seconds  my  efforts  .  .  . 
everything  concerning  the  government  and  war  in  these  islands 
depends  on  the  president.  He  must  attend  to  everything  punc 
tually;  and,  in  order  to  comply  with  his  Majesty's  commands, 
he  must  pay  over  and  spend  from  the  royal  treasury  what  is 
necessary  for  the  affairs  of  government  and  of  war." 

He  complained  that  the  audiencia  had  interfered  with  his 
administration  of  the  finances  and  had  suspended  the  payment  of 
the  drafts  which  he  had  drawn  on  the  treasury.  He  had  no  re 
course  on  account  of  the  delay  necessary  before  an  appeal  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  could  be  answered.  He  complained  that 
the  audiencia  had  meddled  with  affairs  of  government  on  trivial 
pretexts,  rendering  him  practically  powerless. 

During  this  period  the  internal  troubles  of  the  colony  were 
supplemented  by  the  interference  of  the  viceroy  and  audiencia 
in  Mexico.  The  latter  had  been  reluctant  to  surrender  their 
former  authority  over  the  Philippines.  There  were  conflicts  of 
jurisdiction  between  the  viceroy  and  the  governor  and  between 
the  two  audiencias  over  a  number  of  matters,  among  which 
affairs  of  a  commercial  nature  were  preeminent.  Both  the 
authorities  at  Manila  and  those  of  Mexico  claimed  jurisdiction 
over  the  galleons  which  plied  between  Manila  and  Acapulco.42 


41  Santiago  de  Vera  to  Contreras,  June  20,  1585,  Blair  and  Robertson 
VI,  67-68. 

42  See  Recopilacion,  9-45,  for  regulations  of  the  galleon  trade  between 
Acapulco  and  Manila.     By  these  laws,  promulgated  from  1583  to  1636, 
the  governor  of  the  Philippines  was  given  authority  in  Manila  over 


68  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

Numerous  protests  were  made  during  this  early  period  against 
what  was  considered  the  unauthorized  interference  of  the  Mexi 
can  authorities.  Those  in  Manila  felt  that  inasmuch  as  they  had 
an  audiencia  which  was  co-equal  in  power  with  that  of  New 
Spain,  they  should  be  independent  of  the  viceroyalty  in  all  the 
affairs  of  justice,  government,  and  commerce. 

The  combined  memorials  of  the  residents  and  officials  of 
Manila,  which  we  have  already  noted,  were  presented  at  court 
by  a  new  procurator,  Fray  Alonso  Sanchez.  The  latter,  a 
Jesuit,  was  a  churchman  of  high  standing,  and  his  abilities 
were  recognized  both  at  Madrid  and  in  Rome.  Besides  carry 
ing  commissions  from  the  secular  officials,  he  represented  the 
bishop,  but  the  latter,  distrustful  of  the  influence  at  court  of 
a  Jesuit  commissioned  by  the  secular  government,  with  which 
the  prelate  \vas  constantly  at  war,  determined  to  send  one  of  his 
own  supporters  to  Spain  to  represent  his  interests.  The  emis 
sary  of  Salazar  was  Fray  Francisco  Ortega,  of  the  Augustinian 
order.  Ortega  followed  Sanchez  to  Spain  and  rendered  valuable 
service  as  procurator  of  his  order  at  Madrid.43 

In  written  memorials  and  in  personal  interviews  with  the 
king  and  with  members  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  Sanchez 
summarized  all  the  arguments  heretofore  given,  asking  for  the 
abolition  of  the  audiencia.  The  newness  of  the  country,  the 
sparseness  of  the  population  and  the  poverty  of  the  inhabitants, 
according  to  his  argument,  made  such  an  institution  a  financial 
burden.  If  it  were  continued,  the  salaries  of  the  magistrates 
would  have  to  be  paid  from  Mexico.  An  audiencia  in  Manila 
was  not  necessary,  he  urged,  since  the  chief  element  of  the 


the  dispatching,  manning,  lading,  and  control  of  the  galleon  (see  Re- 
copilacion,  9-45-3,  4,  20,  24,  29,  40,  41,  42,  44,  45,  59).  He  retained  these 
powers  until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  abuses 
resulting  from  his  control  were  eliminated  (Martinez  de  Zuiliga,  Esta- 
dismo,  I,  268). 

43  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  94-95;  Martinez  de  Zuniga, 
An  historical  view,  I,  183-186;  see  Ortega's  Memorials  to  the  King, 
Blair  and  Robertson,  IX,  95-119. 


Objections  to  the  Audiencia  69 

population  was  military,  and  hence  under  martial  law  and 
jurisdiction.  Even  before  the  establishment  of  the  audiencia  it 
had  been  necessary  to  send  but  few  cases  to  Mexico ;  indeed, 
alleged  Sanchez,  lawsuits  seldom  arose  in  the  colony,  and  the 
presence  of  the  audiencia  encouraged  rather  than  prevented 
litigation  among  the  few  merchants  who  lived  in  Manila.  The 
discord  caused  by  the  presence  of  the  tribunal  and  the  con 
tinual  lawsuits  which  it  encouraged  among  the  Spaniards  had 
a  disquieting  effect  011  the  natives,  who  had  no  need  of  such 
an  institution,  and  who  did  not  even  understand  its  purposes. 
The  audiencia,  instead  of  serving  as  a  protection  to  the  natives, 
was  an  instrument  of  tyranny.  The  Spaniards,  understand 
ing  the  use  of  a  court  which  would  enforce  the  contracts  made 
between  them  and  the  ignorant  Indians,  were  often  supported 
in  the  seizure  of  the  latter 's  property,  which  act,  in  reality, 
amounted  to  deprivation  and  legalized  robbery.  Sanchez 
stated  that  the  natives  had  been  terrorized  by  the  audiencia. 
The  magistrates,  versed  in  the  legal  customs  and  practices  of 
Spain  rather  than  of  the  Indians,  were  unfit  to  administer 
justice  in  the  Philippines. 

Sanchez  also  emphasized  the  international  phases  of  the 
audiencia 's  existence  in  the  Philippines,  though  with  conclu 
sions  slightly  different  from  those  which  we  have  already 
noted.  He  stated  that  the  presence  of  the  audiencia  had  caused 
the  Portuguese,  in  China,  formerly  friendly,  to  be  distrustful 
of  the  Spaniards,  and  this  had  resulted  in  a  considerable 
diminution  of  trade.  This  change  of  attitude  he  attributed  to 
the  wording  of  the  cedula  by  which  the  tribunal  had  been 
created,  extending  its  jurisdiction  throughout  the  "entire 
archipelago  of  China."  Sanchez  concluded  his  appeal  with  the 
statement  that  some  act  was  necessary  to  restore  the  confidence 
of  the  Portuguese,  whose  influence,  exerted  upon  the  Chinese, 
could  spell  ruin  for  Spain's  Far  Eastern  colony.  The  cancella 
tion  of  that  claim  to  China  would  remove  all  evidence  of 


70          The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

Spanish  bad  faith;  it  would  show  to  the  Portuguese  that  the 
Spaniards  had  no  desire  to  encroach  on  their  rights,  and 
through  the  restoration  of  commerce  and  prosperity  the  future 
of  the  colony  would  be  assured.44 

Sufficient  has  been  presented  to  show  that  the  audiencia,  as 
established  in  1584,  was  not  a  success.  The  chief  objection 
to  the  tribunal  was  not  its  influence  as  a  court;  the  real 
fault  seems  to  have  lain  in  the  indefiniteness  of  the  articles  of 
establishment  which  gave  it  administrative  powers,  co-ordinate 
with  the  governor  and  captain-general.  Almost  every  diffi 
culty  occurred  in  the  administrative  field.  The  audiencia  also 
failed  to  preserve  harmony  between  church  and  state  and 
added  to  these  complexities  by  itself  having  dissensions  with 
the  bishop.  The  petty  character  of  the  men  who  constituted 
this  particular  government,  their  personal  selfishness,  and  their 
eagerness  to  take  advantage,  in  dishonest  ways,  of  the  time 
and  the  distance  which  separated  the  colony  from  the  royal 
control,  contributed  to  the  failure  of  the  institution  at  that 
time.  The  audiencia  was  scarcely  established,  and  it  certainly 
did  not  have  time  to  adjust  itself  to  the  new  conditions  with 
which  it  found  itself  surrounded,  before  it  was  removed.  It 
would  seem  that  the  authorities  in  Madrid  were  somewhat 
hasty  in  withdrawing  the  audiencia,  for  it  had  proved  its 
efficacy  throughout  the  entire  Spanish  empire.  The  ill  success 
of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  at  this  time  does  not  prove  that 
the  institution  was  a  failure,  or  that  its  establishment  was  a 
mistake,  for  seven  years  later  it  was  returned  and  continued 


y  consultas  de  Fr.  Alonso  Sanchez  (no  date  given),  A.  I., 
67-6-27;  see  also  Juan  de  la  Concepcion,  Hlstoria  general  de  Fili- 
pinas  [cited  hereinafter  as  Concepcion,  Historia  general],  II,  103-184. 
These  agreements  are  interesting  because  they  show  how  intensely 
nationalistic  were  the  respective  sentiments  of  the  Spaniards  and  Portu 
guese  with  regard  to  their  Asiatic  colonies,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  since  1580  the  home  governments  of  the  two  nations  had  been 
united.  This  correspondence  illustrates  the  fact  that  the  Portuguese 
regarded  their  former  colonies  as  still  distinctively  their  own. 


Withdrawal  of  the  Audiencia  71 

without  interruption  until  1898,  and  continues  still  as  then 
reorganized.  The  statement,  of  Philip  II  on  November  25,  1595, 
"that  experience  had  proved  it  to  be  unnecessary  in  a  land  so 
new  and  unsettled"45  can  hardly  be  justified  in  view  of  subse 
quent  events. 

The  causes  of  the  breakdown  of  the  first  audiencia  may  be 
found  in  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  the  personnel  of  the 
tribunal,  the  indefiniteness  of  the  laws  which  created  it,  the 
novelty  of  the  situation  to  magistrates  and  officials  and  their 
failure  to  adapt  themselves  to  their  duties  and  to  one  another. 
As  an  institution  of  reform  the  audiencia  did  not  have  time  to 
adjust  itself  to  a  permanent  status. 

The  king,  in  compliance  with  the  demands  of  the  various 
organizations  and  individuals  of  Manila  as  communicated  by 
their  respective  envoys,  abolished  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  by 
royal  cedula  on  August  9,  1589,  ordering  the  Viceroy  of  New 
Spain  to  take  the  residential  of  all  officials  who  had  been 
identified  with  the  Manila  government.  To  carry  out  these  or 
ders  Licentiate  Herver  del  Coral  was  sent  from  Mexico  to 
Manila,  where  he  arrived  in  May,  1590,  in  company  with  the 
new  governor,  Gomez  Perez  Dasmarifias.46  Santiago  de  Vera, 
the  ex-governor,  was  promoted  to  a  magistracy  in  the  Audi 
encia  of  Mexico;  the  oidor,  Pedro  de  Kojas,  was  made  t entente 
and  asesor  to  the  governor,  while  the  former  oidor,  Rivera,  and 
Fiscal  Ayala,  were  left  without  office.47 

The  regular  organization  for  the  administration  of  justice 
in  the  provinces  was  left  precisely  as  it  had  been  when  the 
tribunal  was  in  existence.  The  alcaldes  may-ores  and  the  co- 
rregidores  still  functioned  as  judges  of  first  instance  and  as  gov 
ernors  of  the  provinces.  The  alcaldes  ordinarios  remained  the 


43  Royal  cedula  for  the  restoration  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  No 
vember  25,  1595,  A.  I.,  106-4-19. 

46  Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XV,  65-66. 

47  Suppressed    Audiencia    to    the    King,    June    20,    1590,    Blair    and 
Robertson,  VII,  208-211;   also  Rccopikicion,  2-15-181. 


72  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

judges  of  first  instance  in  the  city  of  Manila.  These  judges 
tried  cases  with  appeal  to  the  governor,  and  the  judgment  of 
the  latter  was  final  in  cases  involving  a  value  of  a  thousand 
ducats  or  less.  Cases  of  a  higher  category  might  be  appealed 
from  the  decision  of  the  governor  to  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico, 
and  thence,  if  again  appealed,  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 

The  audiencia  of  three  magistrates  and  a  fiscal  was  replaced 
by  a  governor,  who  was  both  captain-general  and  sole  judge. 
He  was  assisted  in  the  latter  capacity,  as  above  noted,  by  a 
teniente  and  asesor,  a  lawyer,  who  advised  him  in  legal  affairs 
and  prepared  his  judicial  decisions  for  him.  This  reform  was 
made  on  the  representation  of  Fray  Sanchez,  that  Manila  had 
no  need  of  a  judicial  system  more  pretentious  than  that  of  any 
Spanish  provincial  town.  That  city  was  accordingly  reduced 
to  the  rank  of  a  city  or  district,  with  dependence  in  judicial 
and  administrative  matters  on  New  Spain,  in  whose  audiencia 
appeals  from  the  governor  of  the  Philippines  were  heard. 

With  these  new  reforms  the  leading  authorities  in  Manila 
professed  to  be  greatly  pleased.  Bishop  Salazar,  who  was  the 
most  influential  person  in  Manila  at  this  time,  expressed  his 
satisfaction  to  the  king  in  a  letter  dated  June  24,  1590.48 
He  suggested,  however,  that  the  continuance  of  the  audiencia 
might  have  been  satisfactory  could  its  members  have  been  paid 
from  the  treasury  of  New  Spain.  He  reported  the  arrival  of 
the  new  governor,  and  stated  that  the  latter  had  already  given 
evidence  of  a  desire  to  govern  wisely  and  justly. 

Salazar 's  optimism  in  regard  to  the  good  intentions  of  the 
governor  could  not  have  been  long  continued,  for  Morga  tells  us 
that  in  the  first  year  of  the  government  of  Gomez  Perez  Das- 
marinas  the  need  of  an  audiencia  was  felt  by  many.49  At  that 
time,  all  the  powers  of  government  were  centralized  in  the  gov- 


48  Salazar  to   Felipe   II,  June   24,    1590,   Blair   and  Robertson,  VII, 
252. 

49  Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XV,  75. 


The  Bishop  and  the  Governor  73 

ernor,  and  there  was  no  immediate  authority  to  which  the  people 
could  apply  for  relief.  Salazar  had  many  disputes  with  the  gov 
ernor  over  questions  relating  to  the  respective  spheres  of  the 
church  and  state,  and  from  the  decisions  of  the  executive  the 
prelate  had  no  recourse.  Dasmarinas,  on  reporting  these  matters 
to  the  king,  stated  that  the  bishop  had  interfered  in  the  matter 
of  the  collection  of  the  tribute,  the  government  of  the  encomien- 
das,  the  Chinese  trade  (in  which,  the  governor  alleged  that  the 
prelate  had  an  unpriestly  interest),  and  in  the  administration 
of  justice.50  The  prelate  had  interpreted  the  removal  of  the 
audiencia  as  constituting  a  re-establishment  of  the  concession 
formerly  made  to  the  church  of  extensive  control  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  government  and  justice.  He  claimed  that 
ecclesiastical  judges  should  have  the  same  civil  jurisdiction  as 
they  had  exercised  before  the  audiencia  was  first  founded. 
This,  of  course,  the  governor  would  not  tolerate. 

Bishop  Salazar  was  so  displeased  with  the  turn  which 
affairs  had  taken  in  Manila  that  he  determined  to  leave  the 
Islands,  and  passage  being  placed  at  his  disposal  by  the  willing 
governor,  the  bishop  set  out  in  July,  1592. 51  On  his  arrival 
in  Spain,  Salazar  concerned  himself  principally  with  religious 
matters,  securing  some  valuable  reforms.  Among  the  latter 
was  the  erection  of  the  Philippines  into  an  archbishopric  and 
the  creation  of  three  subordinate  bishoprics.  Salazar  showed 
the  desirability  of  the  restoration  of  the  audiencia  as  a  pre 
ventive  check  on  the  excesses  of  the  governor,  but  this  change 
was  not  made  as  an  immediate  consequence  of  his  recommen 
dations. 

A  cedula  was  issued  on  January  17,  1593,  which  outlined 
with  more  definiteness  a  judicial  system  for  the  Islands.  This 


so  Dasmarinas  to  Felipe  II,  June  20,  1591,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
VIII,  142-168,  passim. 

s1  Salazar,  on  reaching  the  Spanish  court,  was  made  first  archbishop 
of  the  Philippines.  He  died  on  December  4,  1594,  before  he  could 
assume  his  new  post. 


74  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

reform  confirmed  the  position  of  the  governor  as  nominal  head 
of  the  judiciary,  with  jurisdiction  over  appeals  from  the  lower 
courts,  but  it  decreed  that  these  cases  should  be  tried  by  a 
letrado.  The  governor's  final  and  conclusive  jurisdiction  was 
extended  to  all  cases  not  exceeding  a  thousand  ducats  in  value. 
Cases  of  a  greater  value  might  be  appealed  to  the  Audiencia  of 
Mexico.52  The  governor  was  given  authority  to  name  a  protector 
of  the  Indians.53 

The  above  changes  were  followed  shortly  by  the  cedilla  of 
August  18,  1593,  by  which  the  title  of  teniente  de  cap-it  an- 
general  y  asesor  de  gobcrnador  y  capitan-general  de  las  Islas 
Filipinos  was  bestowed  on  Don  Antonio  de  Morga,  who  was 
probably  the  most  efficient  jurist  and  one  of  the  most  versatile 
officials  that  Spain  ever  sent  to  her  Asiatic  dependency.54 
Morga  was  at  this  time  not  only  successor  to  the  audiencia  in 
judicial  matters,  but  also  attorney-general  and  sole  legal  ad 
viser  to  the  governor.  His  predecessor,  Pedro  de  Rojas,  was 
transferred  to  Mexico,  in  pursuance  of  the  idea,  as  alleged  in 
the  order  of  transfer,  of  removing  from  the  Philippines  all  the 
members  of  the  old  audiencia,  so  that  the  new  scheme,  as  re 
vised  at  that  time,  might  be  allowed  to  work  itself  out  without 
prejudice.  Before  his  departure,  the  residencia  of  Rojas  was 
conducted  by  Morga. 

Even  the  reforms  of  1593  did  not  suffice  to  make  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice  satisfactory  to  all  parties.  From  the 


52  C£dula  of  January  17,  1593,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VIII,  315. 

•r>3  Ibid.;  see  also  c&dula  of  same  date  in  Recopiladon,  6-6-8. 

54  Morga  remained  in  the  Philippines  throughout  a  period  of  eight 
years  and  during  this  time  distinguished  himself  as  a  lawyer  and 
judge,  administrator,  soldier,  and  later  as  a  historian.  It  was  due  to 
his  energies  as  senior  magistrate  that  Van  Noordt,  the  Dutch  free 
booter,  was  defeated  at  the  entrance  of  Manila  Bay.  Morga,  in  his 
Sucesos,  already  quoted  several  times,  has  left  us  a  scholarly  view  of 
conditions  as  they  existed  at  the  time  of  his  residence  in  the  Islands. 
Morga  left  the  Philippines  on  July  10,  1603,  with  a  promotion  to  the 
Audiencia  of  Mexico;  he  served  in  New  Spain  for  several  years  and  in 
1616  he  was  again  promoted  to  the  post  of  president  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Quito. 


Restoration  Requested  75 

large  amount  of  correspondence  which  exists,  embodying  com 
plaints  against  the  harsh  methods  of  Dasmarinas  and  his  suc 
cessor,  Tello,  three  letters  may  be  cited  which  show  the  attitude 
of  the  various  officials  of  the  colony  towards  the  re-establish 
ment  of  the  audiencia.  The  first  of  these  was  written  by  Governor 
Dasmarinas  himself,  and  it  may  be  in  some  ways  surprising  to 
note  that  he  asked  for  the  restoration  of  the  audiencia.  His  rea 
sons,  in  part,  however,  were  different  from  those  advanced  by  his 
contemporaries.  Dasmariiias  was  of  the  opinion  that  an  audi 
encia  would  be  effective  in  the  nullification  of  the  interdicts  and 
excommunications  imposed  by  the  archbishop  and  the  local 
prelates,  which  he  claimed  were  working  havoc  with  the  civil 
government.55 

The  treasury  officials  complained  that  the  absolute  govern 
ment  of  the  executive  was  contrary  to  the  interests  of  real 
hacienda.  Their  objections  to  the  prevailing  system  were 
voiced  in  the  second  of  the  memorials  alluded  to  above,  that  of 
Francisco  de  la  Misa,  factor  of  the  royal  treasury  of  Manila.56 
Misa  said  that  under  the  former  arrangement  the  audiencia 
had  audited  the  accounts  of  the  royal  treasury  and  of  the  city 
of  Manila  each  year.  In  this  way  the  accounts  had  been  well 
kept  and  the  funds  properly  accounted  for.  The  removal  of 
the  audiencia  had  left  the  governor  with  authority  over  the 
nomination  of  the  officials  of  real  hacienda,  as  well  as  the 
supervision  of  the  accounts.  Since  Dasmarifias  had  been  gov 
ernor,  no  accounts  had  been  rendered  by  the  minor  officials  of 
the  treasury,  and,  as  a  consequence,  their  superiors  had  been 
unable  to  make  up  their  reports  for  the  Contaduria  of  Mexico. 
The  governor's  attention  had  been  called  to  this  deficiency  re 
peatedly,  but  the  latter  had  displayed  no  interest  in  the  state 
of  the  colony's  finances,  which,  said  Misa,  exceeded  all  other 
matters  in  importance.  "This  comes,"  the  factor  observed, 


55  Dasmarinas  to  the  King,  December  6,  1595,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 
se  Misa  to  the  King,  May  31,  1595,  A.  I.,  67-6-29. 


76  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

"from  placing  in  charge  of  Your  Majesty's  finances  a  soldier, 
unfitted  to  do  else  than  command  troops,  and  then  unchecked 
by  an  audiencia,  so  far  distant  from  your  royal  person."  The 
laxity  of  the  governor  and  of  his  subordinates  seems  to  have 
resulted  in  the  loss  of  much  revenue. 

Misa  also  showed  that  there  had  been  many  irregularities  in 
the  sale  of  offices,  deficiencies  which  the  presence  of  an  audi 
encia  would  have  checked.  Instead  of  selling  the  minor  clerk 
ships  of  the  exchequer,  the  governor  had  given  them  to  his 
friends.  Two  offices,  which  were  by  no  means  insignificant,  those 
of  the  chief  clerkships  of  government  and  of  justice,  respectively, 
had  been  sold  formerly  for  four  thousand  pesos  each.  The  gov 
ernor,  however,  had  preferred  to  have  them  on  his  civil  patron 
age  list;  this  would  not  have  been  permitted  had  an  audiencia 
been  present  to  enforce  the  law. 

The  governor  was  charged  by  Misa  with  extravagance  in  the 
expenditure  of  the  revenue  of  the  colony.  The  payment  of  the 
salaries  of  new  appointees  to  offices,  friends  of  the  governor, 
had  made  heavy  drains  on  the  treasury.  The  king,  by  repeated 
cedillas,  had  forbidden  the  designation  of  an  excessive  number 
of  alcaldes  and  corregidores  because  of  the  desirability  of  econo 
mizing  the  resources  of  the  colony.  While  the  audiencia  was  in 
existence  its  consent  had  been  necessary  for  the  creation  of  new 
judicial  districts,  but  since  the  recall  of  the  tribunal,  the  gov 
ernor  had  trebled  the  number  of  provincial  officials,  and,  in 
addition,  had  permitted  each  to  have  a  salaried  assistant. 

According  to  Misa,  various  other  evils  had  resulted  from  the 
absolutism  of  the  governor,  among  which  were  numerous  abuses 
which  he  had  tolerated  in  the  galleon  trade.  It  was  alleged  that 
Spanish  merchants  in  Mexico  had  sent  money  to  agents  in  Manila, 
and  in  that  way  had  caused  the  legal  amount  brought  from 
Acapulco  for  investment  on  the  annual  galleon  to  be  exceeded.57 


57  The  amount  legally  permitted  to  be  taken  to  the  Philippines  at 
this  time  was  500,000  pesos    (subsequently  1,000,000  pesos).     The  gal- 


Restoration  Requested  11 

This,  the  factor  stated,  was  due  partially  to  the  laxity  and  cor 
ruption  of  the  Acapulco  officials,  who  had  permitted  the  galleon 
to  leave  that  port  with  more  than  the  authorized  amount  of 
money.  The  governor  of  the  Philippines,  however,  could  have 
prevented  this  abuse  had  he  been  so  inclined,  as  the  ships' 
manifests  were  always  subject  to  his  inspection  on  arrival 
at  Manila.  The  money  sent  by  the  merchants  of  Mexico  was 
invested  in  merchandise  in  the  Islands  and  these  goods  were 
shipped  back  to  Acapulco  on  the  galleon,  thus  excluding  the 
commerce  of  the  local  merchants.  The  latter  were  growing 
poorer  daily  while  the  governor  and  his  friends  were  waxing 
richer.  The  governor  had  also  exercised  favoritism  in  the  dis 
tribution  of  cargo  space,  thus  rewarding  his  friends  and  punish 
ing  his  enemies.58  Since  the  suppression  of  the  audiencia  these 
abuses  had  increased,  as  there  had  been  no  authority  in  Manila 
to  hold  the  governor  in  check. 

This  memorial,  from  Misa,  which  was  carefully  considered 
at  court,  went  far  toward  demonstrating  that  the  restoration 
of  the  audiencia  would  have  beneficial  results,  so  far  as  the 
administration  of  real  hacienda,  was  concerned. 

The  third  of  the  letters  referred  to  as  reflecting  the  attitude 
of  the  Manila  officials  toward  the  re-establishment  of  the 
audiencia  and  ultimately  contributing  to  its  restoration,  was 
directed  to  the  court  by  Antonio  de  Morga,  the  efficient 
lieutenant-governor.  Morga,  as  did  Misa,  placed  great  em 
phasis  on  the  need  in  Manila  of  a  more  efficient  system  for  the 
administration  of  the  exchequer.  Morga  was  moderate  in  his 


leon,  on  the  voyage  from  Manila  to  Acapulco,  could  carry  merchandise 
to  the  registered  value  of  250,000  pesos  (later  500,000  pesos).  This 
regulation  was  first  enacted  January  11,  1593  (Rccopilacion  9-45-6,  9). 
On  the  same  date  residents  of  New  Spain  were  forbidden  to  trade  in 
the  Philippines  and  the  entire  Philippine  and  Chinese  trade  was  ex 
pressly  reserved  to  subjects  in  the  Philippines.  The  latter  were  given 
the  exclusive  privilege  of  sending  goods  to  New  Spain  (ibid.,  1).  They 
were  permitted  to  buy  only  from  the  Chinese  merchants  who  came  to 
Manila  (ibid.,  34). — See  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  Estadismo,  I,  266-270. 
ss  Cedula  of  January  11,  1593,  Recoyil-acwn,  9-45-44. 


78  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

characterization  of  the  governor,  alleging  that  Dasmarinas  had 
been  brought  completely  under  the  influence  of  the  ecclesiastics. 
He  expressed  the  belief  that  an  audiencia  would  aid  in  com 
batting  what  he  termed  the  retrogression  of  the  colony  under 
the  influence  of  the  priests.  "There  should  be  someone,"  he 
wrote,  "to  oppose  the  ecclesiastics  in  a  land  so  far  away  from 
the  Audiencia  of  Mexico;  for,  no  matter  what  question  is  sent 
there  for  decision,  at  least  two  years  must  elapse  before 
despatches  can  be  returned."59  No  official  was  better  qualified 
to  explain  the  needs  of  the  colony  in  matters  of  justice  than 
Morga,  for  he  was  at  that  time,  in  reality,  the  supreme  court 
of  the  Islands. 

The  audiencia,  after  an  interregnum  of  seven  years,  was 
restored  by  a  cedula  promulgated  by  Philip  II,  November  26, 
1595.60  The  tribunal  was  to  consist  of  a  president,  who  should 
also  be  governor  and  captain-general,  four  oidores,  a  -fiscal,  and 
various  subordinates.  The  history  of  the  former  audiencia  and 
the  reasons  for  its  suppression  and  re-establishment  are  sum 
marized  in  the  cedula  as  follows : 

I  established  an  audiencia  in  that  city  and  province  in  order  that 
everything  might  be  governed  by  means  of  it,  and  that  justice  might 
be  administered  with  the  same  universal  equality,  mildness,  and  satis 
faction  desirable;  after  its  establishment  I  ordered  it  suppressed  as 
experience  proved  it  unnecessary  in  a  land  so  new  and  unsettled;  in 
its  place  I  sent  a  governor,  and  though  his  administration  was  excel 
lent,  yet,  inasmuch  as  that  community  had  grown,  and  I  hope  that  it 
will  continue  to  grow,  I  have  thought  it  advisable  to  found  and 
establish  the  said  audiencia  again. 

In  this  cedula,  which  was  addressed  to  Governor  Tello,  the 
king  pointed  to  the  increased  importance  of  the  Philippines, 
and  to  the  many  expeditions  by  which  the  Island  of  Luzon 
and  other  islands  of  the  Archipelago  had  become  pacified  and 


59  Morga  to  Philip  II,  July  6,  1596,  Blair  and  Robertson,  IX,  271. 

co  Ordinance  for  the  re-establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila, 
November  26,  1595,  A.  I.,  106-4-19;  also  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  IX, 
189-191. 


Restoration  of  the  Tribunal  79 

more  densely  settled.  The  increase  of  commerce  with  the 
Chinese  was  also  cited  as  a  reason  for  providing  the  Islands 
with  a  more  stable  government.  It  was  stated  that  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice  there  should  be  as  much  efficiency  as 
possible  without  the  loss  and  inconvenience  involved  in  ap 
pealing  cases  to  Mexico.  The  governor  would  have  more  time 
for  his  increasing  administrative  and  military  duties  if  dis 
engaged  from  his  former  judicial  functions.  The  cedula  con 
tinued  : 

You  [the  governor]  may  find  it  advisable  to  have  by  you  persons 
with  whom  to  take  counsel,  in  order  that  matters  may  be  considered 
with  the  requisite  conformity  and  by  a  sufficiently  large  body  of 
advisers;  for  these  reasons  I  have  decided  to  form  an  audiencia;  .  .  . 
you  shall  be  its  president,  holding  that  office  with  those  of  my  gov 
ernor  and  captain-generai.ei 

Together  with  this  decree  of  re-establishment  the  king  is 
sued  special  instructions  to  Tello,  prescribing  in  detail  the 
relations  which  the  governor  was  to  observe  with  the  audiencia. 
These  instructions,  in  general,  sought  to  prevent  the  recurrence 
of  the  misunderstandings  which  had  been  so  fatal  to  the  earlier 
tribunal.  The  governor  and  oidores  were  ordered  to  co 
operate  in  the  formulation  of  commercial  regulations,  with  a 
view,  particularly,  to  securing  the  Chinese  trade,  in  the  en- 


6i  The  Archbishop  of  Manila,  in  a  letter  to  the  king,  on  August  15, 
1624,  stated  that  the  principal  motive  which  influenced  Philip  II  to  re 
establish  the  audiencia  at  the  time  of  Governor  Tello,  was  that  in  a 
district  so  remote  and  distant  from  his  royal  presence  the  governors 
might  not  be  so  absolute,  but  that  there  might  be  a  superior  arm  to 
check  them,  and  to  prevent  their  extortions  from  innocent  people 
(Blair  and  Robertson,  XXI,  95).  It  is  certain,  too,  that  the  audiencia 
was  also  destined  to  champion  the  royal  prerogative  in  the  face  of  the 
encroachments  of  the  higher  officials  of  the  church.  This  need  was 
especially  urged  by  Morga. 

Grao  y  Monfalcon,  the  procurator  of  the  merchants  of  Manila  at  the 
court  in  1636,  wrote  on  June  13  of  that  year:  "In  the  year  590  the 
royal  Audiencia  of  Manila  was  suppressed  .  .  .  and  its  suppression 
must  also  be  reckoned  among  the  hardships  of  that  city  .  .  .  because 
of  those  which  it  suffered  until  the  year  597,  when  the  Audiencia  was 
reestablished  (sic)."  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVII,  189). 


80  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia,  of  Manila 

forcement  of  the  pancada,62  the  consideration  of  ways  and 
means  to  prevent  money  from  passing  to  China,  in  matters  of 
taxation  and  finance,  encomiendas,  and  the  pacification  and 
government  of  the  wild  tribes.  By  these  instructions,  it  is  im 
portant  to  note,  the  function  of  advising  the  governor  in  ad 
ministrative  matters  was  definitely  bestowed  upon  the  oidores. 
"Matters  of  importance,"  the  cedilla  prescribed,  "the  said  presi 
dent-governor  shall  discuss  with  the  oidores  of  the  said  audiencia, 
so  that  the  latter,  after  consultation,  may  give  him  their 
opinion."63 

The  governor  and  the  magistrates  were  jointly  charged  to 
do  all  possible  to  discourage  Indians  and  Spaniards  from 
wasting  their  means  in  fruitless  and  petty  lawsuits.  The  na 
tives,  according  to  this  new  reglamento,  should  always  be  pro 
tected  against  the  designs  of  those  who  would  take  undue 
advantage  of  them.  The  governor  was  moreover  instructed  to 
confer  with  the  archbishop  and  audiencia  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  and  the  prelates  were  especially  forbidden  to  excom 
municate  and  issue  declamations  from  the  pulpit  against  the 
officials  of  the  civil  government,  such  as  were  constantly  pro 
claimed  when  Salazar  wras  bishop.  Priests  were  not  to  meddle 
with  the  civil  government,  or  with  the  pancada,  or  with  any 
form  of  trade. 

The  audiencia  as  reformed,  with  the  powers  and  duties 
noted,  began  its  life  in  Manila  on  May  8,  1598.  The  inaugura- 


62  Pancada,  the  wholesale  purchase  of  the  goods  brought  to  Manila 
by  the  Chinese.  These  goods  were  bought  by  a  committee  of  two  or 
three  persons,  acting  for  the  governor  and  ayuntamiento,  then  sold  or 
apportioned  among  the  merchants  of  the  city  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  money  which  they  were  able  to  invest.  This  arrangement 
was  designed  to  give  all  the  merchants  a  chance  to  buy  and  at  the 
same  time  to  prevent  the  Chinese  from  selling  at  exorbitant  prices 
(Cedilla  of  January  11,  1593,  Recopilacion,  9-45-34.) 

es  Ccdnlas  of  May  5,  1583,  and  May  25,  1596,  Recopilacion,  2-15-11. 
It  will  be  noted  that  this  authority  was  granted  to  the  first  audiencia 
established  in  Manila.  This  same  faculty  was  conferred  by  the  Orde- 
nanzas  nuevamente  formadas  para  el  regimen  y  govierno  de  la  audien 
cia  nacional  de  Manila,  Art.  I,  Chap.  1,  Sec.  1  (A.  I.,  106-4-19). 


Service  to  the  Colony  81 

tion  of  the  tribunal  was  attended  with  general  rejoicing,  and 
a  celebration  characterized  by  great  formality  and  pomp.  The 
royal  seal  was  conducted  through  the  city  in  a  procession 
which  wras  composed  of  all  the  royal  and  clerical  dignitaries. 
Church,  state,  and  citizenry  united  in  expressing  satisfaction 
at  the  restoration  of  the  tribunal,  with  its  consequent  prospect 
of  an  efficient  government  and  administration  of  justice. 

Reforms  were  made  in  the  scope  and  composition  of  the 
audiencia  at  various  times  during  its  existence.  It  developed 
from  a  commission  of  three  magistrates,  with  a  president  at 
its  head,  with  definite  and  ill-expressed  powers  over  a  vast 
archipelago,  whose  population  was  sparse  and  scattered,  to  a 
double-chambered  tribunal  of  appeal  in  second  and  third  in 
stance,  with  definite  jurisdiction  over  a  well-organized  common 
wealth.  It  would  be  highly  desirable,  did  space  allow,  to 
review  chronologically  the  important  reforms  which  were 
made  in  the  organization,  scope  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Audi 
encia  of  Manila  throughout  its  history.  The  most  important  of 
these,  however,  will  be  noted  incidentally  in  the  following 
pages. 

The  audiencia,  from  the  time  of  its  renewal  onward, 
typified  and  represented  the  royal  authority,  and  its  tenure  was 
more  continuous  than  the  governorship.  Eight  times  subse 
quently  did  the  audiencia  assume  the  reins  of  government  in 
lieu  of  the  governor.  It  became  the  most  reliable  channel 
through  which  the  royal  authority  made  itself  felt  in  the 
Islands,  and  it  was  especially  utilized  by  the  court  as  a  check 
on  the  governor.64  Whenever  occasion  arose,  the  audiencia 
interposed  as  the  intermediary  and  arbiter  between  dissenting 


e*  Martinez  de  Zuniga  has  this  to  say  concerning  the  work  and  pur 
pose  of  the  tribunal:  "The  royal  audiencia  was  established  to  check 
the  despotism  of  the  governor,  whom  it  has  never  impeded,  because 
its  learned  members  were  always  the  weaker,  and  the  governor  may 
send  them  as  prisoners  to  Spain,  exile  them  to  the  provinces  to  take 
census,  or  imprison  them  in  Fort  Santiago,  as  has  been  done"  (Mar 
tinez  de  Zuniga,  Estadismo,  I,  244). 


82  The  Establishment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 

parties  in  the  name  of  the  sovereign,  and  its  decrees  were 
listened  to  with  respect.  It  wras  no  longer  a  temporary  organ 
ization,  and  so  firmly  established  was  it  henceforth  that  no 
person  seriously  considered  its  recall  a  possibility.  Through 
a  period  of  three  hundred  years  the  audiencia  exercised  its 
functions.  It  was  first  and  always  a  judicial  body.  It  shared 
executive  and  administrative  duties  with  the  governor.  It 
frequently  exercised  attributes  of  an  advanced  legislative  char 
acter.  It  participated  in  the  government  of  the  provinces.  It 
shared  the  authority  of  the  royal  patronage  in  the  control  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs.  These  various  activities  will  be  studied 
in  subsequent  chapters. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS   OF   THE   AUDIENCIA 

The  audiencia  was  first  and  always  a  tribunal  of  justice. 
It  was  established  for  the  purpose  of  trying  cases  and  settling 
disputes.  Had  it  no  other  functions  than  the  purely  judicial, 
however,  it  would  not  have  played  the  important  part  which  it 
did  in  colonial  administration  during  two  hundred  years  of  its 
existence.  Its  chief  interest  to  the  student  of  history  and  gov 
ernment  will  not  be  so  much  its  activity  as  a  judicial  institution 
as  the  relations  it  bore  to  other  departments  of  the  government. 
Its  extraordinary  powers  and  functions  developed  incidentally 
at  first  through  the  establishment  of  the  institution  in  colonies 
where  no  other  agency  existed  to  deal  with  the  unforeseen 
problems  and  necessities  which  arose  from  time  to  time.  The 
gradual  assumption  and  exercise  of  non-judicial  functions  are 
therefore  the  chief  characteristics  to  be  noted  in  the  history  of 
the  Audiencia  of  Manila. 

The  aim  of  this  chapter,  however,  will  be  to  study  the 
audiencia  in  its  capacity  as  a  civil  judiciary  and  to  clear  the 
way  for  the  discussion  in  subsequent  chapters  of  the  wider, 
and  from  the  present  viewpoint,  more  notable  fields  of  its 
activity.  An  effort  will  be  made  to  describe  its  judicial  pro 
cedure,  the  kinds  of  cases  which  it  tried,  the  limitations  on  its 
jurisdiction — what  courts  were  inferior  to  it,  and  what  authority 
was  superior.  This  investigation  will  be  made  from  the  view 
point  of  the  historian,  rather  than  from  that  of  the  student  of 
jurisprudence,  subject  to  such  limitations  as  a  lack  of  knowledge 
of  the  law  may  impose.  We  shall  first  consider  the  procedure 
of  the  audiencia  as  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  Indies,  illus 
trating  this  procedure  by  the  citation  of  actual  cases  in  practice. 


84  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  as 
denned  in  the  special  decree  of  establishment  of  May  5,  1583, 
have  been  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapter.  By  this  decree 
the  audiencia  was  granted  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  in 
cases  of  appeal  from  the  lower  courts  and  original  jurisdiction 
in  those  affecting  the  government,  and  the  conduct  of  its 
officials.  The  authority  of  the  audiencia  in  the  latter  cases 
was  exercised  through  the  appeals  which  came  to  it  from  the 
special  investigators  and  visitors  who  tried  these  officials  in 
first  instance. 

The  laws  of  the  Indies,  after  prescribing  the  time  of  meet 
ing  and  the  hours  of  the  daily  sessions  of  the  audiencia,  made 
their  first  important  judicial  regulation  by  forbidding  viceroys 
and  presidents  to  assist  in  the  determination  of  suits.  Cases 
must  be  tried  by  the  properly  qualified  oidores,  yet  the  presi 
dent  (viceroy  or  governor)  was  to  sign  the  decisions  with  the 
magistrates.1  Unless  the  president  were  a  lawyer,  he  was  even 
denied  cognizance  of  military  cases.  The  audiencia  had  juris 
diction  over  appeals  from  the  viceroy  or  governor  in  all  gov 
ernment  matters  to  which  any  official  or  private  citizen  might 
take  exception.2  In  case  of  disagreement  between  the  audiencia 
and  the  president,  it  was  prescribed  that  the  question  at  issue 
should  be  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  In  case  the 
majority  of  the  audiencia  agreed  to  follow  a  certain  course  of 
action,  the  viceroy  or  president  was  forbidden  to  contravene 
or  oppose  that  action.  Instead,  he  was  ordered  to  abide  by  it, 
appealing  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  for  final  settlement  of 
the  contention.3 

There  were  many  laws  regulating  the  relations  between  the 
audiencia  and  the  governor,  most  of  which  will  be  noted  in 
greater  detail  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  The  most  important  were 


1  Recopilacion,  2-15-32. 

2  Ibid.,  34-36,  44. 

3  Ibid.,  41. 


Regulations  for  the  Audiencia  85 

the  laws  which  ordered  that  the  viceroys  of  New  Spain  and  Peru 
should  leave  to  the  audiencias  entire  jurisdiction  over  residential, 
questions  involving  the  marriage  relation4  and  the  administra 
tion  of  property  of  deceased  persons.5  A  law  especially  refer 
ring  to  the  Philippines  ordered  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  to  ab 
stain  from  interfering  with  the  government  of  the  Chinese  in 
the  Parian.6  This  did  not  forbid  the  trial  on  appeal  of  cases 
relating  to  the  Chinese,  since  in  practice  the  audiencia  had 
authority  to  take  cognizance  of  such  cases.  Certain  extra 
duties  were  required  of  the  oldest  oidor  of  the  audiencia,  who 
was  known  as  the  deccuno.  He  was  given  complete  authority 
over  the  tribunal  in  the  absence  of  the  president.  He  might 
assign  cases  to  the  magistrates,  designate  judges  for  special 
duties  and  determine  all  matters  relating  to  the  interior 
organization  and  government  of  the  tribunal.  These  functions 
were  assumed,  after  1776,  by  the  regent,  and  the  prerogatives 
of  the  office  of  decano  became  merely  nominal,  except  when 
the  regent  was  absent.  In  audiencias  whose  size  permitted  it, 
the  oldest  oidor,  or  the  regent,  after  that  office  was  created, 
could  determine  whether  sessions  should  consist  of  one  or  two 
solas.1  An  audiencia  was  legally  constituted,  however,  if  only 
one  magistrate  were  present.8  The  audiencia  was  commanded 
to  guard  its  proceedings  with  great  secrecy,  and  such  rules  were 
formulated  for  its  magistrates  as  would  enable  the  tribunal  to 
uphold  its  dignity,  and  command  the  respect  of  the  common 
wealth. 


*  Certain  phases  of  these  questions   remained  within   the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  church  courts. 
s  Recopilacion,   2-15-53. 

6  Parian,  a  market-place;  the  name  given  to  the  quarter  set  aside  by 
the  government  wherein  the  Chinese  were  confined.     This  restriction 
was  imposed  in  1603,  to  give  added  security  to  the  city  of  Manila,  en 
dangered  by  a  Chinese  uprising  at  that  time. — See   Montero  y  Vidal, 
Historia  general,  III,  146-148;   Recopiladon,  2-15-55;   5-3-24;    6-18-5. 

7  Ibid.,  2-15-64;    2-16-16  to  20. 
a  Ibid.,  2-15-180. 


86  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

Cases  of  first  instance  were  tried  by  inferior  judges  who 
were  below  the  category  of  oidores?  As  noted  in  a  former 
chapter,  these  judges  were  the  alcaldes  ordinaries,  alcaldes 
mayores,  and  corregidores.  The  former  tried  civil  and  criminal 
cases  in  the  towns  and  cities  and  the  last  two  exercised  ex 
tensive  jurisdiction  in  the  provinces.  Cases  were  appealed 
from  them  to  the  audiencia.10  The  audiencia  was  forbidden  to 
concern  itself  with  cases  of  first  instance,  excepting  certain 
criminal  suits  which  originated  within  five  leagues  of  Manila.11 

A  separate  sola  for  the  trial  of  criminal  cases  was  cre 
ated  in  the  audiencias  of  Lima  and  Mexico.  The  magistrates 
serving  in  these  solas  were  designated  as  alcaldes  'del  crimen. 
They  had  jurisdiction  in  first  instance  over  the  criminal  cases 
arising  within  five  leagues  of  the  capital,  as  referred  to  above, 
and  in  second  instance  over  those  appealed  from  the  provincial 
judges.12  The  oidores  in  these  audiencias  confined  themselves 
to  civil  suits,  but  in  audiencias  where  there  wrere  no  alcaldes 
del  crimen,  the  oidores  were  authorized  to  try  both  civil  and 
criminal  cases.13  The  magistrates  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila 
had  both  criminal  and  civil  jurisdiction,  as  that  tribunal  be 
longed  to  the  latter  class.  When  the  number  of  oidores 
present  was  insufficient  to  do  the  work  of  the  audiencia, 
alcaldes  ordinarios  or  alcaldes  mayores  who  had  the  necessary 
qualifications  might  be  transferred  temporarily  to  the  tribunal. 
When  acting  as  oidores  they  could  not  try  cases  over  which 
they  had  formerly  exercised  original  jurisdiction.14 

A  system  of  procedure  was  prescribed  for  the  trial  of  cases 
before  the  audiencia  and  the  order  fixed  in  which  these  should 
come  up  for  consideration.  It  was  ordered  that  two  slates 


9  Ibid.,  70.    See  Chapter  I  of  this  book. 

10  Ibid.,  71. 

11  Ibid.,  3,  5,  67.     See  Chapter  I,  note  20,  for  distinction  between 
oidores  and  alcaldes  del  crimen. 

12  Ibid.,  68;  2-19-2. 
is  ibid.,  1,  3. 

.,  2-15-63,  71. 


Precedence  of  Suits  87 

should  be  kept,  one  for  cases  classified  according  to  their  im 
portance  and  another  for  those  to  be  tried  by  rotation.  Cases 
of  the  first  category  and  those  which  were  especially  urgent 
might  supersede  the  latter,  but  when  there  were  none  of  the 
former  the  second  slate  was  to  be  adhered  to. 

Cases  relating  to  real  hacienda  took  precedence  over  all 
others.  The  president  was  instructed  to  see  personally  that 
these  cases  should  not  be  subjected  to  delay  and  that  at  least 
one  day  a  week  should  be  set  aside  for  their  adjudication. 
Next  in  importance  were  cases  involving  infractions  of  royal 
ordinances  and  laws.  Probate  cases  were  given  one  day  a 
week.  Two  days  weekly  were  set  aside  for  the  consideration 
of  suits  which  arose  between  Indians  and  between  Indians  and 
Spaniards.  Cases  involving  the  poor,  however,  were  to  take 
precedence  over  these.  The  audiencia  was  made  responsible 
for  the  good  treatment  of  the  Indians  and  it  was  charged  with 
the  obligation  of  seeing  that  all  suits  to  which  Indians  were 
parties  should  be  tried  without  loss  of  time.  Delays  resulting 
from  the  carelessness  of  lawyers  and  from  their  eagerness  to 
profit  at  the  expense  of  the  natives  were  discouraged.  Matters 
of  slight  importance  which  pertained  to  the  Indians  were  to  be 
dispatched  by  decrees  of  the  audiencias  and  viceroys ;  this  pro 
vision  was  designed  to  avoid  contentious  litigation,  to  which  the 
natives  were  characteristically  inclined.  It  also  sought  thereby 
to  protect  them  from  dishonest  judges  and  lawyers.  Any  and 
all  of  the  cases  mentioned  in  this  paragraph  were  considered 
to  be  of  such  importance  that  they  were  classified  among  the 
first  to  be  tried  and  determined  prior  to  those  involving  prop 
erty,  commercial  affairs,  and  ordinary  transactions.  Of  the 
latter  cases  those  already  decided  were  to  be  reopened  before 
the  hearing  of  new  cases  of  the  same  class.  Cases  involving 
the  poor  were  to  be  given  speedy  consideration.15  Length  of 


Ibid.,   2-15-74   to   85. 


88  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

waiting  should  be  the  criterion  for  the  consideration  of  the  re 
maining  cases. 

The  audiencia  was  empowered  to  compel  testimony  from  all 
persons  and  authorities.16  As  already  noted,  the  oidores  of 
audiencias  which  did  not  contain  alcaldes  del  crimen  were 
authorized  to  entertain  appeals  from  persons  who  had  been 
condemned  to  death.17  The  same  was  true  of  all  other  crimi 
nal  cases  that  were  admitted  to  appeal.  Members  of  religious 
and  military  orders  were  not  exempted  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  audiencia.18 

The  laws  regulating  the  audiencia 's  jurisdiction  in  civil 
cases  seem  to  have  varied  according  to  the  time  and  the  policy 
of  the  government.  The  audiencia  exercised  both  original  and 
appellate  jurisdiction,  as  we  have  already  noted.  Most  of  the 
civil  suits  tried  by  the  tribunal  were  appealed  to  it  from  in 
ferior  judges.  A  law  was  made  in  1563  ordering  that  cases 
involving  less  than  twenty  pesos  might  be  tried  by  verbal 
process.19  This  law  would  seem  to  have  excluded  cases  of  less 
than  that  value  from  appeal  to  the  audiencia,  as  the  processes 
had  to  be  committed  to  writing  in  order  to  be  appealed.  The 
cedulas  of  November  26,  1573,  and  August  10,  1574,  fixed  the 
minimum  amount  that  might  be  appealed  at  six  pesos  of  eight 
reales,  or  3000  maravedis.20  Charles  V  in  1542  promulgated 
an  important  law  for  the  regulation  of  appeals  to  the  audi 
encia.  It  provided  that  the  smallest  amount  that  might  be  ap 
pealed  should  be  300,000  maravedis  (667  pesos).21  This  law 


IB  ibid.,  90-91. 

IT  ibid.,  93. 

is  Exemption  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  authority  having  been 
claimed  by  the  military  and  religious  orders  of  Santiago,  Calatrava,  and 
Alcantara,  Philip  IV,  on  April  1,  1635,  gave  jurisdiction  over  these 
orders  to  the  audiencias. — Ibid.,  96. 

I'J/bid.,  5-10-1. 

20  Ibid.,  2. 

21  According  to  the  Recopilacion,  5-13-1   (laws  of  October  20,  1545, 
February  13,  1620,  and  the  Ordinance  of  Audiencias  [1563]),  the  value 
of  the  peso  was  fixed  at  450  maravedis. 


Jurisdiction  89 

was  re-promulgated  on  September  24,  1568,  and  on  September 
22,  1626. 22  The  provisions  of  these  laws,  however,  probably 
applied  only  to  such  cases  as  might  come  from  provincial 
justices,  since  appeals  from  city  judges  and  ayuntamientos 
could  be  taken  over  by  the  audiencia  with  less  trouble  and  ex 
pense,  because  of  the  proximity  of  the  tribunal.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  opinion  is  seemingly  substantiated  by  a  new  law, 
dated  June  13,  1634,  which  ordered  that  an  appeal  from  an 
ayuntamiento  should  not  be  received  in  an  audiencia  unless 
the  suit  involved  a  sum  greater  than  60,000  maravedis,  or  133 
pesos.23  This  was  considerably  less,  it  will  be  seen,  than  the 
amount  fixed  as  the  limit  by  the  law  immediately  preceding 
it,  which  was  promulgated  in  1626. 

The  laws  establishing  the  finality  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
audiencia  were  also  altered  from  time  to  time.  The  earliest  law 
on  the  subject,  dated  April  24,  1545,  ordered  that  no  appeal 
should  be  made  from  the  tribunal  in  cases  involving  less  than 
6000  maravedis  (13.3  pesos).24  This  limit  was  raised  to  200  pesos 
by  cedulas  of  April  4,  1558,  and  March  4,  1559,  and  by  the  ordi 
nance  of  1563.  -5 

In  1542,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  was  made  final  in 
all  cases  appealed  from  the  ordinary  courts.26  The  execution  of 
all  decisions  which  were  not  appealable  was  rigidly  required.27 
By  the  ordinance  of  1563  it  was  stipulated  that  sentences  of 
review  which  had  been  confirmed  by  the  audiencia  could  not  be 
appealed  again,  no  matter  how  large  a  sum  was  involved.28 
This  was  partially  abrogated  by  the  law  of  February  13,  1620, 
which  ordered  that  cases  involving  6000  pesos  of  450  maravedis 


22  Recopilacion,  2-15-S 

23  ibid.,   5-12-20. 
2*  Ibid.,  5-12-29. 
25  Ibid.,  5-10-3. 
26 /bid.,  5-13-8. 
27  ibid.,  4,  7. 

5-10-4. 


90  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

each,  already  terminated  on  review  by  an  audiencia,  might  be 
further  appealed  to  the  king.29 

Decisions  were  reached  by  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of 
the  magistrates  trying  the  case.  When  there  were  only  two 
oidores  present  a  decision  had  to  be  unanimous.  In  case  the 
full  quota  of  magistrates  were  present  and  the  votes  were 
equally  divided,  the  fiscal  might  be  called  in  to  decide 
the  case,  but  if  the  latter  were  prosecuting  the  case,  or  were 
otherwise  incapacitated,  a  duly  qualified  lawyer  might  be  chosen 
to  serve  as  a  special  magistrate.30  This  rule  did  not  apply  to 
the  revision  of  sentences  in  civil  cases  wherein  the  value  exceeded 
300,000  maravedis;  in  these  the  concurrence  of  three  magistrates 
was  necessary.31  A  record  of  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  magis 
trates  was  kept  in  the  official  journal  of  the  audiencia.  Deci 
sions  and  legal  papers  had  to  be  signed  by  the  magistrates  in 
volved.  Oidores  who  registered  dissenting  opinions  were  obliged 
to  affix  their  signatures  to  the  autos  with  those  who  had  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  but  the  negative  votes  were  also  recorded.32 

While  the  audiencia  might  repeal  the  written  opinion  of  an 
inferior  judge  in  review  of  sentence,  the  revision  of  verbal  deci 
sions  of  alcaldes  ordinarios  could  be  accomplished  only  when  the 
alcalde  in  question  had  been  summoned  before  the  tribunal  and 
the  reasons  for  his  decision  had  been  investigated  in  his  pres 
ence.33  The  audiencia,  therefore,  exercised  appellate  jurisdic 
tion  over  civil  and  criminal  cases  tried  in  first  instance  by  the 
judges  of  the  provinces.  ; 

If  an  alcalde  mayor  or  other  inferior  judge  failed  to  comply 
with  the  instructions  laid  down  for  his  guidance,  or  if  he  were 


29  ibid.,  5-13-1. 
2-15-97. 
88. 

32  Ibid.,  103,  107,  108.  Magistrates  were  forbidden  to  sign  decisions 
during  office  hours — valuable  time  which  should  be  devoted  to  hearing 
cases  (H>id,.,  109). 

105. 


Jurisdiction  91 

guilty  of  an  abuse  in  the  administration  of  justice,  he  was  held 
to  account  by  the  visiting  oidor  who  was  dispatched  at  regular 
intervals  for  the  inspection  of  the  provinces  —  and  for  the  judi 
cial  scrutiny  of  the  provincial  courts.  In  cases  of  notorious 
injustice  special  pesquisidores,  usually  oidores,  were  sent  at  once 
for  the  correction  of  the  abuse  in  question,  at  the  expense  of  the 
offending  officials.34  These,  if  found  guilty  of  wilful  disobedi 
ence,  were  punished  in  accordance  with  the  gravity  of  their 
offenses.  The  audiencia  had  appellate  jurisdiction  in  these 
cases.35  The  visiting  oidores  imposed  fines  in  accordance  with  a 
tariff  which  had  been  formulated  by  the  audiencia  and  approved 
by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.36  All  fines  levied  by  the  audiencia, 
either  upon  officials  or  individuals  could  be  remitted  by  the  presi 
dent  with  the  consent  of  the  acuerdo.37 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  government  to  give  the  audiencia  final 
jurisdiction  in  as  many  cases  as  possible.  It  was  desirable  to 
endow  the  colonial  tribunals  and  authorities  with  sufficient  power 
to  make  them  worthy  of  respect.  At  the  same  time  it  was  neces 
sary  to  relieve  the  Council  of  the  Indies  of  the  duty  of  hearing 
the  vast  number  of  individual  suits  which  would  inevitably  come 
to  it  if  that  tribunal  were  made  too  accessible.  The  Council  was 
occupied  with  appeals  in  government  and  justice  from  all  of 
Spain's  colonies.  It  has  been  noted  that  the  limit  of  value  of 
cases  which  could  be  appealed  from  the  audiencia  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies  was  raised  in  1620  from  200  to  6000  pesos.  This 


_ 

a*  Ibid.,  117.  Pesquisidores  wer4  special  investigators  with  extra 
ordinary  executive  and  judicial  powers  who  were  sent  out  by  the  home 
or  central  government  when  need  arose  to  correct  abuses  in  colonial 
or  provincial  administration.  Visitadorcs  (visitors)  were  sent  regu 
larly  to  inspect  the  government  of  a  province  or  colony.  The  governor 
was  supposed  to  dispatch  visitors  to  examine  the  work  of  alcaldes 
mayorcs  and  corregidores  every  three  years. 

ss  lUd.,  118. 

so  IUd.,  178. 

37  Recopilacidn,  5-15-21.  Acuerdo,  the  joint  consultative  action  of 
the  governor  and  audiencia.  See  Chapter  VI  of  this  book  and  note  78 
of  the  same  chapter. 


92  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

would  seem  to  indicate  a  growing  tendency  to  confine  suits  in 
volving  individuals  to  the  colonial  tribunals,  thus  increasing  the 
importance  of  the  audiencias,  and  at  the  same  time  making  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  more  exclusively  a  tribunal  of  adminis 
tration.  This  change,  however,  was  never  completely  effected, 
despite  the  various  expedients  adopted  to  discourage  the  appeal 
of  individual  cases.  Persons  appealing  were  obliged  to  guar 
antee  the  expenses  of  suit.  The  great  cost,  the  delays,  and  the 
distance  altogether  made  appeal  difficult.  Appeals  of  longer 
standing  than  two  years  were  not  received  from  the  Philippines 
in  the  Council  of  the  Indies.38  An  investigation  of  the  records 
shows  that  most  of  the  cases  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
involved  administrative  law  in  some  form,  having  to  do  either 
with  the  prosecution  of  officials,  their  removal  from  office,  the 
prosecution  of  bondsmen,  residencies,  conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  or 
with  appeals  from  the  decision  of  the  audiencia  in  commercial 
and  ecclesiastical  matters. 

The  gradual  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia 
over  encomiendas  may  be  cited  as  an  example  of  the  changes  in 
the  authority  of  the  tribunal  and  in  its  relation  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies.  The  first  important  legislation  in  regulation  of 
the  enconiienda  was  the  celebrated  law  of  Malines,  promulgated 
in  that  city  by  Charles  V,  on  October  20,  1545,  and  enunciated 
at  successive  dates  until  1610.  The  law  prescribed  the  course 
which  was  to  be  pursued  by  the  audiencia  in  suits  between  indi 
viduals  relative  to  encomiendas  or  the  Indians  thereon.  In 
these  contentions  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and  not  the  audiencia 
was  the  final  arbiter.  The  duty  of  the  latter  tribunal  was  to  col 
lect  evidence  in  these  cases,  taking  the  testimony  of  witnesses 


as  Ibid.,  5-13-3.  The  periods  of  validity  of  cases  appealed  from  the 
audiencias  of  Ultramar  varied  with  the  distance  and  the  time  necessary 
for  the  transmission  of  autos  to  the  Council.  The  time  assigned  by  the 
laws  of  the  Indies  was  as  follows:  Chile,  one  and  a  half  years,  Tierra 
Firme,  New  Granada,  Santo  Domingo,  New  Spain,  one  year,  and  the 
Philippines,  two  years.  This  law  was  promulgated  first  on  September 
24,  1621,  and  again  on  March  30,  1629. 


Encomiendas  93 

for  both  sides  and  remitting  all  papers,  sealed,  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies.  The  council,  on  consideration  of  the  evidence,  ren 
dered  the  final  decision.  The  audiencia  had  to  conclude  its  part 
of  the  investigation  and  file  its  report  within  a  period  of  three 
months.  This  time  limit  was  extended  to  six  months  in  1554. 
The  purpose  of  this  law  was  to  guarantee  justice  in  the  assign 
ment  and  retention  of  encomiendas  by  removing  them  from  the 
control  of  the  audiencias,  whose  magistrates,  as  experience  had 
proved,  often  allowed  themselves  to  be  influenced  by  local  preju 
dices.  Encomiendas  were  to  be  assigned  by  the  king,  in  theory 
at  least,  and  no  other  authority  save  the  monarch  and  his  council 
could  exercise  jurisdiction  over  them.39 

The  audiencia  was,  however,  authorized  to  act  as  the  pro 
tector  of  persons  holding  Indians  on  encomiendas,  to  see  that 
they  were  not  unjustly  deprived  of  or  wrongfully  disturbed  in 
their  holdings.  In  case  a  person  were  thus  deprived  of  his 
Indians,  the  audiencia  was  empowered  to  restore  conditions  to 
their  former  state.  If  the  aggressor  persisted,  or  cared  to  contest 
the  right  of  his  opponent  to  the  Indians  in  question,  the  audi 
encia  was  ordered  to  observe  the  law  of  Malines,  collecting  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  and  forwarding  it  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  for  final  decision.  The  frequency  of  litigation,  however, 
and  the  vast  number  of  unimportant  cases  which  arose  under  the 
provisions  of  the  law  of  Malines  came  to  demand  too  much  of  the 
time  and  attention  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  thereby  causing 
many  delays  in  suits  involving  encomiendas.  In  order  to  remedy 
this  defect,  Philip  III,  on  April  17,  1609,  conferred  on  the  audi 
encia  jurisdiction  over  all  cases  involving  encomiendas,  reparti- 
mient&s,40  tributes,  and  despoliations  of  Indians  up  to  the  value 


so  Recopilaci'in,  2-15-123  to  133. 

40  Ibid.,  133  (1563).  Helps  (Spanish  conquest,  I,  102,  103-104) 
states  that  the  repartimiento  system  was  originated  in  1496,  from  the 
requirement  of  Columbus  that  the  natives  of  Hispaniola  should  pay 
him  a  certain  quantity  of  gold  as  tribute.  In  view  of  the  inability  of 
the  natives  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  Spaniards  in  regard  to  the 


94  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

of  a  thousand  ducats.41  Cases  involving  a  greater  value  were 
still  to  be  settled  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  Malines.  Finally, 
in  1624  it  was  ordered  that  in  suits  which  did  not  involve  more 
than  three  Indians  and  in  cases  wherein  the  costs  of  litigation 
exceeded  the  amount  in  dispute,  the  decree  of  the  governor 
should  prevail.  For  obvious  reasons,  the  audiencia  could  not 
concern  itself  with  such  cases,  but  when  the  value  of  the  Indians 
justified  the  attention  of  the  tribunal,  its  decisions  were  final, 
taking  precedence  over  those  of  the  governor.42  This,  then, 
was  the  final  status  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  over 
encomiendas  as  set  forth  in  the  laws  of  the  Indies.  In  the 


precious  metal,  "the  villagers  were  ordered  to  make  (and  work)  the 
farms  in  the  Spanish  settlements.  This  may  be  considered  as  the 
beginning  of  the  system  of  repartimientos,  or  cncomiendas,  as  they 
were  afterwards  called." 

In  a  subsequent  chapter  the  same  author  tells  of  the  difficulty  which 
Ovando  had  in  compelling  the  Indians  to  live  among  the  Spaniards, 
to  pay  tribute  and  accept  religious  teaching.  Ferdinand  and  Isabella, 
in  a  letter  dated  December  20,  1503,  directed  Ovando  to  compel  the 
Indians  to  deal  with  the  Spaniards,  to  work  for  wages,  to  go  to  mass, 
to  be  instructed  in  the  faith,  and  further,  that  they  should  do  all  these 
things  "as  free  persons,  for  so  they  are."  .  .  .  "Ovando  adopted  the 
following  system,"  says  Helps;  "he  distributed  Indians  amongst  the 
Castillians,  giving  to  one  man  fifty,  to  another  a  hundred;  with  a  deed 
that  ran  thus:  'to  you,  such  a  one,  is  given  an  encomien&a  of  so  many 
Indians,  with  such  a  Cacique,  and  you  are  to  teach  them  the  things 
of  our  Holy  Catholic  Faith'.  The  word  encomienda  .  .  .  was  a 
term  belonging  to  the  military  orders,  corresponding  to  our  command- 
ery  or  preceptory;  and  this  term  naturally  enough  came  into  use 
with  the  appointment,  as  governors  in  the  Indies,  of  men,  who  held 
authority  in  those  orders,  such  as  Bobadilla  and  Ovando."  (See  also 
Bancroft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  262.)  "With  respect  to  the 
implied  condition  of  teaching  the  Indians  'the  Holy  Catholic  Faith'  it 
was  no  more  attended  to  from  the  first  than  any  formal  clause  in  a 
deed,  which  is  supposed  by  the  parties  concerned  to  be  a  mere 
formality." 

"We  have  now  arrived,"  continues  Helps,  "at  the  climax  of  the 
repartimiento  system.  That  which  Bobadilla  did  illegally,  was  now 
done  with  proper  formalities  on  parchment:  .  .  .  We  may  notice 
again  that  the  first  repartimientos  made  by  Columbus  .  .  .  appor 
tioned  to  any  Spaniard,  whom  he  thought  fit,  such  and  such  lands,  to 
be  worked  by  such  a  Cacique  and  his  people — a  very  different  proced 
ure  to  giving  men — a  feudal  system,  not  a  system  of  slavery." — Helps. 
Spanish  conquest,  I,  138-139. 

41  Recopilacion,  2-15-129. 

42  ibid.,  127. 


The  Audiencia,  and  the  Governor  95 

Philippines  the  authority  of  the  tribunal  in  regard  to  them  was 
neither  executive  nor  legislative,  except  in  such  cases  and  on 
such  occasions  as  we  shall  refer  to  later.  The  judicial  author 
ity  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  over  encomiendas  was  indis 
putable. 

Having  indicated  the  general  basis  upon  which  the  authority 
of  the  audiencia  rested,  we  may  more  precisely  define  its  jurisdic 
tion  by  reviewing  a  few  of  the.  most  characteristic  cases  which 
were  tried  in  the  tribunal  in  accordance  with  the  laws  already 
discussed.  The  statement  has  been  made  that  at  the  time  of  its 
establishment  the  audiencia  was  needed  as  a  court  of  justice  and 
that  it  was  removed  in  1589  for  political  reasons  rather  than 
because  of  the  inadequacy  or  failure  of  the  institution  as  a 
tribunal  of  justice.  In  the  preceding  chapter  we  saw  that  the 
audiencia  was  designed  to  relieve  the  executive  of  judicial  duties, 
such  as  the  trial  of  cases  appealed  from  the  alcaldes  mayores 
of  the  provinces  and  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  of  the  city.  These 
functions,  up  to  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  audiencia, 
had  been  exercised  by  the  governor.  This  had  resulted  in  favor 
itism  and  in  a  perversion  of  justice  to  the  private  ends  of  the 
governor  and  of  his  friends.  Perhaps  the  chief  evil  under  the 
system  had  proceeded  from  the  governor's  double  jurisdiction, 
as  both  executive  and  judge,  over  cases  involving  encomiendas 
and  encomenderos.  The  governor  assigned  encomiendas  in  the 
name  of  the  king,  and  he  was  also  judge  with  final  jurisdiction 
over  all  suits  involving  them,  the  law  of  Malines  being  impos 
sible  of  execution  in  the  Philippines  before  the  establishment  of 
the  audiencia,  and  after  its  withdrawal  in  1589.43 

The  same  was  true  in  regard  to  commercial  cases,  and  com 
plaints  were  ever  arising  against  the  governor 's  high-handed  pro 
ceedings  in  the  allotment  of  cargo  space  on  the  galleons  to  his 
friends,  and  his  monopolization  of  the  best  Chinese  goods  that 


43/bM.,  5-15-181. 


96  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

came  to  Manila.  The  governor,  as  in  the  assignment  of  encomi- 
endas,  enjoyed  an  undue  advantage  in  these  matters,  for  at  the 
same  time  that  he  was  the  executive  with  the  power  of  bestowing 
these  favors,  he  was  the  sole  judge  in  all  contentions  which  arose 
regarding  commerce.  It  was  therefore  distinctly  in  the  interests 
of  justice  that  a  supreme  court  should  be  established,  and  it  is 
easy  to  understand  why  those  who  had  profited  by  the  absence 
of  the  audiencia  should  oppose  its  restoration,  and  why  others 
should  take  the  opposite  view. 

Soon  after  the  audiencia  was  abolished  in  1589,  arguments 
were  presented  at  court  for  its  restoration.  From  the  large 
number  of  petitions  that  were  presented,  two,  aside  from  those 
discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter,  may  be  cited  here  because 
they  illustrate  the  disadvantages  from  a  judicial  point  of  view 
of  having  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  hands  of  the  gov 
ernor,  with  appeal  to  Mexico.  Francisco  de  la  Misa,  factor  of 
the  treasury  of  Manila,  wrote  a  memorial  to  the  king  on  May 
31,  1595,44  referring  to  the  delay  which  had  arisen  in  the  trial 
of  suits  involving  encomiendas:  the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor 
was  not  final ;  appeals  had  to  be  carried  to  the  Audiencia  of 
Mexico  and  cases  involving  a  thousand  ducats  or  more  had  to  be 
taken  from  that  tribunal  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies;45  this 
meant  two  appeals  and  much  delay.  He  mentioned  certain  cases 
which  had  been  pending  two  years,  and  showed  that,  because  of 
the  delay  to  which  they  had  been  subjected  in  Mexico,  it  would 
be  at  least  two  years  more  before  the  decisions  could  be  returned. 
Misa  said  that  conditions  had  reverted  to  the  state  which  had 
existed  before  the  audiencia  was  established ;  a  much  larger 
number  of  cases  was  awaiting  trial  than  the  governor  and  his 


44  Francisco  de  la  Misa  to  the  King,  May  31,  1595,  A.  I.  67-1-29. 

45  In  this  and  in  other  letters  of  officials  in  the  Philippines  we  find 
the    amount    frequently    referred    to    as    1000    pesos,    although    in    the 
Recopilacitin  (2-15-129  [1609])  the  jurisdiction  is  fixed  at  1000  ducats. 
According  to  law  181   (1589),  the  authority  of  the  governor  (the  audi 
encia  had  been  suppressed)   was  extended  to  cases  of  the  same  value. 


Appeals  to  Mexico  97 

lieutenant  could  attempt  to  try.  These  difficulties  were  multi 
plied  by  the  fact  that  there  was  no  fiscal,  an  officer  whose  serv 
ices  as  legal  adviser  to  the  government  and  as  prosecuting  attor 
ney  were  indispensable.46 

Misa  petitioned  for  a  reform  of  the  law  which  had  estab 
lished  the  governor  as  judge  of  ultimate  recourse  in  cases  in 
volving  one  thousand  pesos  (ducats)  or  less.  He  believed  it 
advisable  to  reduce  the  limit  of  the  value  of  cases  settled  in  the 
colony  from  one  thousand  to  four  hundred  pesos  and  appeal  all 
those  exceeding  the  latter  sum  to  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico.  It 
would  result  in  a  more  equitable  administration  of  justice,  he 
stated,  if  the  trial  of  important  cases  were  conducted  in  second 
instance  before  that  tribunal.  This  practice,  though  subject  to 
great  delay,  would  have  the  advantage  of  guaranteeing  the 
review  of  these  cases  by  a  competent  and  properly  qualified 
magistracy  rather  than  by  a  biased  and  tyrannical  executive. 
He  alleged  that  four  hundred  pesos  in  the  Philippines  meant 
as  much  as  a  thousand  elsewhere.  Another  suggestion  ad 
vanced  by  Misa  was  that  suits  and  investigations  involving  real 
hacienda,  should  be  tried  by  competent  judges,  rather  than  by 
the  governor,  whose  own  personal  interest  in  the  cases  was  often 
too  great  to  ensure  fair  trial.  Another  evil  pointed  out  by  Misa, 
and  a  fairly  typical  one  throughout  the  history  of  the  colony, 
was  the  delay  and  uncertainty  of  the  residencia.  This  defect 
was  particularly  apparent  at  this  time  because  all  cases  of  resi 
dencia  had  to  be  sent  to  Mexico,  since  there  was  no  tribunal  in 
Manila  with  jurisdiction  on  appeal  over  these  official  investiga 
tions.  Misa  described  the  plight  of  various  alcaldes  ma-yores, 
corregidores,  and  other  officials  who  had  been  investigated  and 
suspended  from  office,  awaiting  the  outcome  of  the  residencia. 


46  It  is  probable  that  Misa  meant  that  there  was  not  sufficient  dis 
tinction  between  the  governor's  ascsor  and  the  teniente  de  go~bic.rno. 
This  combined  post  was  filled  by  Pedro  de  Rojas  until  1593  and  then 
by  Antonio  de  Morga.  These  officials  were  the  private  advisers  of  the 
governors  in  legal  matters,  and  active  magistrates  at  the  same  time. 


98  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia, 

There  were  no  persons  to  take  their  places ;  as  a  result,  the  sus 
pended  officials  were  without  gainful  employment,  while  their 
districts  and  offices  reverted  to  a  state  of  lawlessness,  barbarism 
and  disorder,  without  governor,  judges,  or  incumbents.  The  gov 
ernor  had  attempted  to  remedy  the  trouble  by  making  tempo 
rary  appointments  from  among  the  removed  officials,  but  this 
he  had  no  authority  to  do;  moreover,  the  reinstatement  of  offi 
cials  whose  conduct  wras  under  investigation  was  subversive  of 
the  best  interests  of  government  and  justice.  The  governor's 
action  in  these  cases  had  raised  a  storm  of  protest  in  the  colony, 
yet  he  was  forced  to  take  these  steps  in  preference  to  leaving 
the  natives  without  government  and  protection.  Misa  presented 
this  picture  of  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  colony  to  show  the  evil 
results  of  the  absence  from  the  Philippines  of  a  tribunal  with 
authority  to  conduct  residencias  and  to  provide  offices. 

While  this  series  of  complaints  was  not  followed  by  an  open 
advocacy  of  the  establishment  of  a  royal  audiencia  in  Manila, 
the  defects  which  were  pointed  out  showed  the  desirability  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  governor's  intervention  in  judicial  mat 
ters.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  arrival  at  court  of 
such  letters  showed  clearly  the  need  of  a  tribunal  at  Manila  for 
the  administration  of  justice. 

Complaints  were  also  directed  against  this  state  of  affairs 
by  Antonio  de  Morga,  lieutenant-governor  of  the  Islands.  This 
official  argued  that  the  commonwealth  required  an  audiencia  in 
order  to  secure  a  more  equitable  administration  of  justice.47  He 
called  attention  to  the  overcrowded  docket  of  the  court  over  which 
he  presided  and  emphasized  the  impossibility  of  the  satisfactory 
termination  of  the  cases  waiting  to  be  tried.  That  the  defects 
referred  to  in  these  communications  were  appreciated  at  court 
is  evidenced  by  the  'cedula  of  May  26,  1595,  which  emphasized 


47  Memorial  of  Antonio  de  Morga,  July  6,  1596,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
IX,  271  et  seq. 


Protector  of  the  Indians  99 

the  necessity  of  administering  justice  in  the  Philippines  with 
"universal  equality,  mildness  and  satisfaction."48 

Nevertheless  the  presence  of  a  tribunal  had  the  effect  of 
encouraging  the  inhabitants  of  the  Islands  to  litigation.  It  has 
been  said  that  there  have  been  more  lawsuits  in  the  Philippines 
than  in  any  other  country  of  the  same  size  and  population,  which 
remark  probably  would  apply  to  any  country  where  the  Spanish 
judicial  system  had  lately  obtained.  This  condition  was  no  doubt 
due  to  the  fact  that  adequate  facilities  existed  whereby  the 
natives  could  go  to  law.  Lawyers  and  judges  were  ever  unduly 
ready  to  encourage  and  hear  any  suits  which  might  arise  if  there 
were  any  way  in  which  profit  might  be  derived  therefrom.  Pardo 
de  Tavera,  in  discussing  these  phases  of  the  legal  history  of  the 
Islands,  states  that  the  laws  protected  the  native,  but  at  the  same 
time  they  kept  him  in  a  state  of  perpetual  tutelage.  Judgments 
were  passed  by  native  magistrates  in  suits  between  natives  in  the 
later  days  of  Spanish  rule,  but  in  general  throughout  the  period 
of  Spain's  domination  suits  were  prosecuted  under  the  direction 
of  a  protector  of  the  Indians  in  case  one  party  to  a  suit  was  a 
Spaniard,  or  when  the  rights  of  the  natives  were  in  any  way 
jeopardized  or  injured  by  a  Spaniard.  ' '  In  this  manner  Spanish 
prestige  was  preserved,  inasmuch  as  it  was  no  longer  an  Indian 
who  asked  for  the  punishment  of  one  belonging  to  a  superior 
race,  but  a  Spaniard  who  took  up  the  Indian's  cause  and  con 
ducted  the  suit  against  another  Spaniard."49  Thus  it  may  be 
seen  that  in  Spain's  judicial  system  the  means  were  provided,  in 
theory  at  least,  whereby  the  meanest  native  could  obtain  justice, 
not  only  among  his  fellows,  but  in  cases  to  which  members  of  the 
superior  Spanish  race  were  parties. 

The  declared  purpose  of  the  whole  system  of  legislation  for 
the  Indies  was  the  material  and  spiritual  well-being  of  the 


48  Cedilla  of  May  26,  1596,  A.  I.,  106-4-19. 

49  Pardo  de  Tavera,  in  Census  of  tlic  Philippine  Islands,  I,  335. 


100  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

Indians.50  The  officials  of  the  government,  the  churchmen,  and 
the  encomenderos  were  especially  charged  in  their  commissions 
and  in  official  correspondence  to  make  the  protection  and  wel 
fare  of  the  Indians  their  chief  concern.  Attention  has  just 
been  directed  to  the  office  of  protector  of  the  Indians.  The 
fiscal,  or  one  of  his  assistants,  attended  to  that  duty  in  the 
Audiencia  of  Manila,  while  agents  (agent es  fiscales)  were  espe 
cially  commissioned  by  the  fiscal  to  act  in  that  capacity  in  the 
provinces.51  We  have  also  noted  that  the  -aid-ores  were  charged 
with  the  duty  of  protecting  the  Indians  when  officiating  as 
visitors  in  the  provinces.  Such  cases,  also  those  involving  de 
cisions  of  corregidores  and  alcaldes  m-ayores  by  which  the  natives 
were  dealt  with  unjustly,  were  appealable,  under  certain  cir 
cumstances,  to  the  audiencia.  These  cases  commanded  the  im 
mediate  attention  of  the  tribunal,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  busi 
ness.52  Among  the  vast  number  of  cases  at  our  disposal  which 
illustrate  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  over  such  matters,  the 
following  may  be  selected  as  typical.  On  May  16,  1796,  the 
fiscal  brought  a  charge  in  the  audiencia  against  the  governor, 
exposing  the  sufferings  inflicted  upon  the  Indians  of  the  barrio 
of  Santa  Ana  by  the  corregidor  of  Tondo53  in  connection  with 
the  construction  of  a  road.  The  audiencia  refused  to  consider 
the  case  in  first  instance,  as  the  matter  was  not  contentious,  but 
it  recommended  that  the  fiscal  should  make  the  charges  before 
the  governor  and  have  him  render  a  decision  upon  the  matter; 
if  exception  were  taken  to  his  decision  the  case  could  be  appealed 
to  the  audiencia.  The  oidores  found  that  they  were  without 


so  Rccopilacion,  1-1,  2,  3;   5-1. 

51  King    to   the    President    and    Oidores,    February    16,    1602,    A.    I., 
105-2-1;    Ccdula,  of  October  25,  1870;    ColcCcion  legisJativa  d-e  Espana, 
CV,  449-463;   Ccdula  of  April  12,  1875,  ibid.,  CXIV,  516-524. 

52  Recopilacion,  2-15-81,  83. 

ss  Tondo  is  now  a  district  or  ward  of  the  city  of  Manila.  At  the 
time  referred  to  here,  the  barrio  of  Santa  Ana  (small  district  under  a 
tcniente  of  a  corregidor  or  alcalde  mayor)  was  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  corrcgiMiento  of  Tondo. 


Cases  Involving  the  Natives  101 

jurisdiction  over  the  case  in  first  instance  and  they  declared 
that  their  entertainment  of  the  suit  would  be  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  Indies.54  The  fiscal  appealed  from  the  judgment  of 
the  audiencia.  The  Council  of  the  Indies,  in  a  return  com 
munication  dated  May  13,  1798, 55  approved  the  ruling  of  the 
audiencia,  affirming  that  in  cases  of  the  nature  referred  to,  the 
fiscal,  as  protector  of  the  Indians,  should  submit  testimony  in 
behalf  of  the  latter  to  the  governor,  who  should  consider 
whether  the  Indians  had  been  wronged  and  render  his  decision 
accordingly.  If  exception  were  taken  to  the  decision  of  the 
governor,  the  case  could  then  be  appealed  to  the  audiencia. 
While  these  appeals  and  this  litigation  were  in  progress,  the 
Indians  were  being  subjected  to  repeated  hardships. 

This  case  is  illustrative  of  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  system 
for  the  administration  of  justice  in  Spain's  colonies.  It  had 
taken  two  years  for  this  appeal  to  be  carried  to  Spain  and 
receive  the  attention  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  answer 
had  yet  to  be  returned,  probably  requiring  at  least  a  year  more 
for  the  return  of  the  Vera  Cruz  and  Acapulco  galleons  and  for 
the  proper  proceedings  to  be  carried  on  in  the  Manila  tribunal. 
It  is  questionable  whether  the  Indians  in  whose  interests  this 
was  ultimately  done  ever  received  any  benefit  from  these  legal 
proceedings. 

The  case  which  has  just  been  described  involved  the  trial 
and  punishment  of  a  corregidor  in  the  defense  and  protection 
of  the  natives.  It  is  important  to  note  that  this  case  was 
ordered  to  be  tried  in  first  instance  by  the  governor  and  not  by 
the  audiencia.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  latter  tribunal  in  second 
instance  was  confirmed  by  the  king  on  this  occasion.  By  the  law 
of  October  9,  1812,  and  by  others  made  pursuant  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  1812,  the  audiencia  was  given  jurisdiction  in  first 


54  Recopilaeion,   2-15-71,   which   forbade   the   trial   of   alcaldes  and 
provincial  officials  before  the  audiencia. 

ss  Council  of  the  Indies  to  the  Fiscal,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 


The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

instance  over  cases  involving  provincial  officials,  and  particu 
larly  judges.  In  regard  to  the  care  and  protection  of  the  Indians, 
which  was  involved  in  this  controversy,  the  law  provided  that 
such  cases  should  be  treated  originally  by  the  corregidorcs  and 
alcaldes  mayores  with  appeal  to  the  audiencia.56  But  this  case 
dealt  primarily  with  the  official  conduct  of  a  corregidor,  over 
whom  the  governor  had  more  direct  jurisdiction.  The  cedilla 
of  May  13,  1798,  which  constituted  the  reply  of  the  king  to  the 
appeal  of  the  fiscal  in  the  case  described  above,  ordered  that 
henceforth  in  cases  affecting  the  relations  of  the  corregidores 
and  alcaldes  mayores  on  the  one  part  and  the  Indians  on  the 
other,  the  fiscal,  audiencia,  and  governor  should  act  in  acuerdo, 
in  that  way  avoiding  friction  and  quarrels  over  jurisdiction.57 
That  the  audiencia  did  not  always  try  cases  relating  to  the 
Indians  with  requisite  promptness,  is  evidenced  by  the  many 
and  repeated  letters  of  the  king  to  the  tribunal,  to  the  fiscal,  as 
protector  of  the  Indians,  and  to  the  regent,  chiding  these  officials 
for  delay.  On  many  occasions  the  royal  zeal  for  justice  in  the 
treatment  of  the  Indians,  based  on  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the 
true  nature  of  the  Filipino,  completely  overruled  all  considera 
tions  of  practicability  and  common  sense.  As  an  illustration  of 
this,  on  June  20,  1686,  certain  natives  of  the  province  of  Bulacan 
sent  false  evidence  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies ;  this  testimony 
was  taken  in  preference  to  that  remitted  by  the  audiencia,  the 
decision  of  the  latter  body  being  reversed  by  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.  The  audiencia  refused  to  allow  the  execution  of  the 
new  judgment ;  the  oidores  all  offered  to  resign  in  protest,  and  the 
regent,  at  the  risk  of  removal,  reopened  the  case.  It  was  proved 
by  the  testimony  of  a  number  of  officials  and  by  the  confessions 


se  Recopilacion,  5-2-3;   2-15-81,  83. 

•r>?  This  decision  conforms  with  the  Recopilacion,  5-2-3,  4,  and  2-15- 
68;  117.  These  laws  give  to  the  audiencia  and  the  governor  jurisdic 
tion  over  excesses  of  the  provincial  judges  and  executives,  and  over 
cases  appealed  from  them.  Ibid.,  2-16-44  gave  jurisdiction  to  the  vice 
roy  over  criminal  charges  against  oidores  and  alcaldes. 


Cases  Involving  the  Natives  103 

of  the  natives  who  had  perjured  themselves  that  the  evidence 
upon  which  the  Council  had  acted  was  false.58  A  record  of  these 
proceedings  was  remitted  to  the  Council  and  that  tribunal 
promptly  reversed  its  former  decision. 

Further  illustrations  of  the  authority  of  the  audiencia  in 
cases  involving  natives  may  be  seen  in  suits  which  arose 
from  time  to  time  over  the  illegal  treatment  of  the  latter  by 
the  friars  and  the  unjust  occupation  of  the  natives'  lands  by  the 
religious  orders.  These  suits  afford  illustration,  also,  of  the 
services  of  the  audiencia  as  an  agency  to  force  persons  to  show 
their  titles  to  lands  which  they  held.59  This  jurisdiction  will 
be  given  more  detailed  treatment  in  the  proper  place,  but  the 
brief  citation  of  one  or  two  cases  among  many  seems  advisable 
to  illustrate  the  activity  of  the  audiencia  in  protecting  the 
Indians,  both  by  trying  suits  involving  them  and  by  actually 
intervening  in  their  behalf. 

Various  revolts  broke  out  among  the  Indians  near  Manila 
from  1740  to  1750.  These  insurrections  were  said  to  have  been 
provoked  by  the  encroachments  of  the  Augustinians  and 
Dominicans  on  the  lands  of  the  natives.  The  matter  was  called 
to  the  attention  of  the  home  government,  and  Pedro  Calderon 
Enriquez,  an  oidor,  was  ordered  to  investigate  the  charges  made 
against  these  religious  orders  and  to  ascertain  the  validity  of 
their  claims  to  the  lands  in  question.  The  friars,  when  ordered 
to  submit  titles  to  a  secular  judge,  refused  to  comply,  claiming 
ecclesiastical  exemption.  In  the  face  of  their  opposition,  Cal 
deron  dispossessed  the  friars  of  the  lands  which  they  were  said 


•r>8  Council  of  the  Indies  to  Audiencia,  December  16,  1687,  A.  I., 
105-2-1.  The  facility  with  which  witnesses  may  be  procured  is  from 
one  point  of  view  a  great  aid  to  the  administration  of  justice  in  the 
Philippines  today.  See  Elliott,  The  Philippines  to  the  end  of  the  mili 
tary  regime,  246-8. 

so  Royal  decree  on  Usurpation  of  Indian  Lands,  November  7,  1751, 
Blair  and  Robertson,  LXVII,  27-34.  See  Cunningham,  "Origin  of  the 
friar  lands  question  in  the  Philippines"  in  Political  science  review, 
X,  465-480. 


104  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

to  have  usurped  and  which  they  were  continuing  to  hold  -with 
out  legitimate  title,  restoring  the  lands  to  the  crown.  The  case 
was  appealed  to  the  audiencia  and  that  tribunal  upheld  the 
visitor. 

Calderon  also  found  that  the  University  of  Santo  Tomas  and 
the  Dominicans,  in  collusion  with  a  clerk  of  the  audiencia,  had 
taken  lands  from  the  native  town  of  Silang  in  1743.  Calderon 
restored  the  lands  to  their  rightful  owners  and  his  act  was  ap 
proved  in  judicial  review  by  the  audiencia.  The  friars  took  ex 
ception  to  this  by  appealing  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The 
Council  notified  the  audiencia  of  its  affirmation  of  the  judgment 
of  Calderon  and  further  stated  that  the  lands  of  Silang,  Irnus, 
San  Nicolas,  and  Cavite  had  been  unjustly  seized  and  should  be 
restored.  This  was  not  only  an  affirmation  but  an  extension  of 
the  sentence  of  the  oidor,  made  by  the  Council  after  the  royal 
fiscal  (of  the  Council  of  the  Indies)  had  reviewed  all  the  evi 
dence  presented  in  the  case.  This  suit  shows  the  efforts  made  to 
carry  out  the  royal  intention  that  the  natives  of  Spain 's  colonies 
should  be  justly  treated.  It  also  shows  the  respective  jurisdic 
tions  of  the  audiencia  and  Council  of  the  Indies  as  courts  of  re 
view  and  appeal  in  adjusting  disputes  between  the  church  and 
the  Indians. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  audiencia  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  the  religious  themselves,  both  as  individuals  and  as  sub 
jects  of  the  king,  punishing  them  for  violation  of  the  civil  laws 
of  the  realm  to  which  they  were  amenable  as  subjects.  An  illus 
tration  of  this  is  furnished  by  the  following  case  which  occurred 
in  1617.  Two  Augustinian  provincials  were  murdered,  one, 
Fray  Geronimo  de  Salas,  by  poisoning,  and  his  successor, 
Fray  Vicente  Sepulveda,  by  strangulation.  A  tribunal  of  friars, 
composed  of  nine  prominent  members  of  the  Augustinian  order, 
was  appointed  by  the  bishop  for  the  investigation  of  the  crime. 
This  body,  after  due  consideration,  caused  six  members  of  the 
order  to  be  apprehended ;  four  of  them  were  believed  to  be 


Ecclesiastical  Cases  105 

guilty  of  the  murder  and  two  were  suspected  of  connivance  at 
the  crime.  On  July  31,  1617,  these  six  culprits  were  handed 
over  to  the  civil  government,  and  on  September  2  of  that 
year,  the  four  guilty  ecclesiastics  were  condemned  to  death  by 
the  audiencia,  while  the  other  two  were  sentenced  to  six  years  of 
service  in  the  galleys.  This  case  illustrates  the  extent  of 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  exercised  respectively  by  the  church 
and  government  tribunals  under  the  fuero  mixto.60  The  former, 
on  this  occasion,  made  the  preliminary  investigations  and  handed 
the  culprits  over  to  the  secular  authority  with  recommendations ; 
the  latter  conducted  the  trial,  passed  sentence  and  saw  to  its 
execution.  The  trial  and  conclusion  of  this  case  covered  the 
remarkably  short  period  of  thirty-three  days.61 

Speaking  generally,  the  authority  of  the  audiencia  over 
ecclesiastical  affairs  extended  to  disputes  between  orders,  be 
tween  the  government  and  the  church,  or  its  representatives, 
to  cases  relating  to  land  titles,  to  those  alleging  abuses  of  the 
Indians  by  the  friars,  to  cases  involving  the  royal  patronage,  and 
to  cases  of  fuerza.62  As  the  question  of  the  ecclesiastical  juris 
diction  of  the  audiencia  will  be  discussed  more  fully  in  subse 
quent  chapters,  no  effort  will  be  made  at  this  time  to  particu 
larize  concerning  its  authority  over  church  affairs,  it  being 
merely  desirable  to  suggest  the  fact  here  that  the  audiencia  had 
jurisdiction  in  suits  involving  the  church  and  the  civil  govern 
ment  and  in  those  which  had  to  do  with  the  protection  of  the 
natives  from  the  abuses  of  the  ecclesiastics. 

Records  of  thousands  of   cases  exist   to  show  the   different 


6<)  Fuero  mixto,  in  this  case  a  fuero  or  concession  to  the  ecclesiastical 
government  of  jurisdiction  over  secular  matters.  See  note  53,  Chapter 
XI,  of  this  volume. 

ei  Audiencia  to  the  King,  September  27,  1617,  A.  I.,  67-6-20.  Three 
of  these  friars  were  hanged  at  once,  and  one,  Juan  Ocadiz,  escaped  to 
New  Spain.  He  was  said  to  be  the  illegitimate  son  of  Dona  Ana  of 
Austria  (see  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVIII,  82-88). 

62  Rccopilacion,  2-15-134  to  153;  2-16-15;  2-18-29,  30;  1-4-3,  20; 
1-6-26,  39,  57;  1-7-18,  29  to  31;  2-15-146,  147,  149.  See  note  3, 
Chapter  XI,  of  this  volume. 


106  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

kinds  of  suits  tried  judicially  in  the  audiencia.  Civil  and  crim 
inal  matters  came  up  in  the  tribunal  as  in  all  other  courts  of 
law,  and  hence,  as  such,  merit  only  passing  attention.  Among 
civil  cases  possibly  the  most  typical  were  those  relating  to 
encomiendas.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Spaniard, 
however  mistakenly  from  the  theoretical  point  of  view,  regarded 
the  encomiendas  as  property  in  the  same  sense  as  a  modern 
farmer  regards  his  farm  as  property.  He  paid  a  rental  or  tax 
to  the  government,  he  engaged  in  agriculture  for  gain,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  moral  duty  of  protecting,  uplifting,  or  edu 
cating  the  Indians  rested  but  lightly  on  his  conscience.  There 
fore,  as  these  cases  are  discussed  in  the  following  pages,  the 
value  of  the  property  and  not  the  treatment  of  the  Indians  on 
the  encomiendas  is  the  first  consideration.  As  already  stated, 
the  law  of  Malines  reserved  for  the  Council  of  the  Indies  final 
action  in  all  encomienda  suits  involving  more  than  one  thousand 
ducats.63 

Many  suits  involving  encomiendas  came  up  prior  to  the 
establishment  of  the  audiencia ;  the  defects  apparent  in  the  trial 
of  these  cases  by  the  governor  show  clearly  the  need  of  an 
audiencia  at  that  time.  The  earliest  case  noted  in  this  connec 
tion  was  prosecuted  in  1580  by  the  asesor  of  the  governor  against 
Dona  Lucia  de  Loaxa,  the  widow  of  an  encomendero,  with  the 
object  of  dispossessing  her  of  an  encomienda  held  at  Butuan, 
Mindanao.64  She  was  charged  with  having  nullified  her  title  by 
marriage  to  another  encomendero,  since  the  law  forbade  married 
women  to  hold  encomiendas.  In  her  defense  she  alleged  that 
the  desire  of  the  governor  to  enforce  the  law  was  only  pretense, 
since  many  married  women  in  the  Philippines  held  encomiendas. 


03  Kecopilacion,  2-1 5-129. 

64  This  case  and  the  others  dealt  with  in  this  section  involving 
encomiendas  are  to  be  found  in  the  Inventario  de  los  pleytos  en  la  real 
audiencia  de  Manila  que  se  hallen  en  el  rl.  y  supremo  consejo  de  las 
Indias  y  remiten  al  rl.  archivo  en  Sevilla  segtin  rl.  orden  de  Julio  de 
1787.  The  key  to  the  above  exists  in  the  Inventario  de  autos  de  la 
Essma.  la  C<imara  de  Indias,  IV,  453,  A.  I. 


Encomienda  Suits  107 

She  stated  that  the  governor  desired  to  deprive  her  of  her  prop 
erty  in  order  that  he  might  bestow  it  upon  a  friend.  This  case 
was  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  it  illustrates  the 
effectiveness  of  the  law  of  Malines,  which  took  from  the  gov 
ernor  authority  over  a  case  in  which  he  was  interested  and  gave 
final  jurisdiction  to  the  tribunal  in  Spain.  The  papers  per 
taining  to  this  case  were  returned  to  the  governor  with  orders 
to  do  as  the  law  commanded.  The  defendant  was  accordingly 
removed  from  the  encomienda. 

Another  case  was  disposed  of  in  a  slightly  different  manner. 
On  January  22,  1581,  Juan  Gutierrez  de  Figueroa,  second  hus 
band  of  Magdalena  Rodriguez,  widow  of  an  encomendero  of 
Mindanao,  filed  suit  before  the  governor  praying  to  be  continued 
as  possessor  of  an  encomienda  which  his  wife  had  held  prior  to 
her  marriage  to  him.  He  brought  the  suit  on  the  grounds  that 
he  wras  a  soldier  and  was  accordingly  deserving  of  reward.  This 
case,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Malines,  came  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor.  He  denied  the  petition,  but 
the  soldier  appealed  the  case  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and 
that  tribunal  again  reversed  the  decision  of  the  governor  on 
May  23,  1584. 

In  January,  1582,  Bishop  Salazar,  as  protector  of  the  In 
dians,  brought  suit  before  Governor  Eonquillo  de  Perialosa 
against  Juan  de  Ayala,  a  Spaniard  holding  various  encomiendas 
in  different  parts  of  the  Island  of  Luzon,  but  resident  in  Manila. 
Two  specific  charges  were  brought  against  Ayala.  He  was  said 
to  have  reduced  the  Indians  on  his  encomiendas  to  the  status  of 
slaves,  which  was  forbidden  by  the  law  of  November  9,  1526.05 
He  had  also  violated  the  law  which  prescribed  that  encomenderos 
should  live  on  their  encomiendas™  and  give  their  personal 


65  Recopilacion,    6-2-1.      This    prohibition    was    first    imposed    by 
Charles  V  on  the  above  date  and  subsequently  by  Philip  II  and  Philip 
III  (see  laws  1  to  14,  same  title). 
6-9-11,  13. 


108  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

attention  to  the  Indians  thereon.  Ayala  adduced  testimony 
to  prove  that  this  law  was  a  dead-letter  and  that  it  was  dis 
regarded  by  most  of  the  encomenderos.  He  even  showed  that 
there  were  many  of  them  residing  in  Spain  who  held  encomien 
das  in  Spain  and  Peru.  Governor  Ronquillo  felt  that  the  evi 
dence  at  hand  was  insufficient  to  justify  a  decision  in  this  case, 
so  he  permitted  it  to  be  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
The  latter  tribunal  rendered  its  decision  on  June  24,  1584,  com 
municating  to  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  its  ruling  that  Ayala 
should  be  allowed  to  retain  the  encomiendas  in  question,  but 
the  president  and  oidores  were  especially  charged  to  enforce  the 
law  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Indies. 

The  procedure  in  these  cases  confirms  the  laws  already 
alluded  to,  which  were  promulgated  before  the  establishment  of 
the  audiencia,  that  the  governor  should  have  jurisdiction  in 
suits  involving  less  than  a  thousand  ducats,  with  appeal  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies.  It  would  also  appear,  from  the  data  at 
our  command,  that  the  audiencia  inherited  the  governor 's  former 
authority  in  these  matters. 

During  the  period  from  1583  to  1589,  .and  after  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  audiencia  in  Manila,  this  tribunal  exercised 
authority  over  suits  involving  encomiendas.  There  is  so  much 
sameness  in  the  nature  of  these  cases  that  little  would  be  added 
by  describing  them.  There  appears  evidence  of  considerable 
conflict  of  jurisdiction,  however,  between  the  governor  and  the 
audiencia  over  the  adjustment  of  the  latter  to  the  new  situation 
relative  to  the  encomiendas.  Governors  Acufia,  Tello  and 
Fajardo  sought  on  various  occasions  to  retain  jurisdiction  over 
suits  involving  encomiendas  on  the  basis  of  the  law  of  Malines, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  audiencia  had  been  given  the 
duty  of  trying  such  cases.  When  appeals  were  made  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies,  that  tribunal  made  clear  its  determina 
tion  that  the  audiencia  should  try  suits  involving  encomiendas, 
but  that  in  administrative  matters  relating  thereto  the  will  of 


Encomienda  Suits  109 

the  governor  should  prevail,  unless  his  decision  were  contested 
through  legal  channels.  An  illustration  of  such  difference  of 
opinion  may  be  noted  in  the  letter  written  by  Governor  Juan 
Nino  de  Tavora  on  August  4,  1628,  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
Tavora  complained  of  the  action  of  the  audiencia  in  regard  to 
the  disposal  of  a  case  involving  an  enoomendero  who  had  mar 
ried  the  widow  of  another  encomendero,  and  who  had  tried  to 
unite  and  hold  both  their  encomiendas  after  marriage.  The  gov 
ernor  contended  that  two  persons  holding  encomiendas  by  pre 
vious  right  should  choose  the  more  desirable  one  and  relinquish 
the  other,  in  accordance  with  the  practice  in  other  places. 
Especially  should  this  be  done  in  the  Philippines,  he  held,  be 
cause  there  were  so  few  encomiendas  in  the  Islands.  The  fiscal 
approved  of  this  suggestion  and  made  a  motion  before  the 
acuerdo  of  the  audiencia  that  this  course  should  be  pursued,  but, 
as  no  laws  had  been  promulgated  on  the  subject,  there  was  no 
precedent  to  follow.  The  audiencia  accordingly  declared  that 
such  a  course  as  the  governor  had  suggested  would  not  be  legal. 
Tavora  petitioned  the  Council  of  the  Indies  for  a  ruling  on  the 
subject.  The  Council  sustained  the  governor  in  its  cansulta 
of  January  15,  1630. 

There  was  apparently  no  limit  to  the  value  of  suits  involving 
encomiendas  which  might  be  tried  in  the  audiencia,  and  ap 
pealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  There  exists  the  record  of 
one  case  in  which  the  encomienda  was  valued  at  223,000  pesos. 
In  this  suit  the  fiscal  proceeded  against  Dona  Juana  Leal  and 
Francisco  de  Rebolledo,  residents  of  Mexico,  for  possession  of  an 
encomienda  held  in  the  Philippines.  This  case  affords  an  illus 
tration  of  the  delays  to  which  the  course  of  justice  was  sub 
ject,  it  being  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  in  1612, 
and  not  finally  settled  till  1620.  A  suit  involving  an  encomi 
enda  valued  at  430,102  pesos  came  before  the  audiencia  in 
1703,  when  two  residents  of  Manila,  named  Delgado  and 
Abaurrea,  were  dispossessed  of  an  encomienda,  by  the  governor. 


110  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

The  encomienda  was  awarded  immediately  to  Juan  de  Echevar- 
ria  and  Antonio  de  Endaya.  The  latter  were  prosecuted  in  the 
audiencia  by  the  dispossessed  encomenderos,  and  the  tribunal, 
in  compliance  with  the  law  of  Malines,  made  the  prescribed  in 
vestigation,  recommending  that  the  governor's  action  should  be 
disapproved,  since  the  evidence  showed  that  the  persons  installed 
on  the  encomienda  were  distant  relatives  of  the  governor.  The 
Council  adopted  the  recommendations  of  the  audiencia  in  this 
case,  ordering  that  the  original  encomenderos  should  be  restored 
to  their  estate,  and  that  this  breach  of  royal  commands  should 
be  registered  against  the  governor  to  be  answered  in  his  res-i- 
dencia. 

Another  suit,  of  a  similar  nature  to  that  described  above, 
was  brought  in  the  audiencia  in  1713  against  Juan  de  Rivas, 
who  had  been  assigned  two  encomiendas  in  Leyte  and  Cebu, 
respectively,  by  the  governor,  thus  depriving  one  Saramiento 
who  had  held  them  formerly.  The  plaintiff  claimed  that  he 
had  made  great  improvements  on  these  estates,  spending 
all  his  income  thereon,  and  as  yet  had  received  no  profits  from 
the  lands.  He  petitioned,  therefore,  that  these  encomiendas 
should  be  bestowed  upon  him  for  another  term.07  The  audiencia 
withheld  its  judgment  on  this  case,  referring  it  to  the  Council. 
That  body,  after  seeking  the  advice  of  the  royal  fiscal  and 


6"  The  laws  of  the  Indies  (Reoopilacidn,  6-19-6)  authorized  the  gov 
ernor  of  the  Philippines  to  assign  encomiendas  ad  interim  for  the 
period  of  six  years  (promulgated  August  25,  1646).  By  the  laws  of 
May  1,  1774,  and  June  8,  1792,  the  period  was  made  five  years  in  all 
the  colonies  except  Peru;  in  the  latter  it  was  six  years  (note  to  Iteco- 
pilacimi,  8-22-1).  We  have  record  of  the  extension  of  an  encomienda 
in  the  Philippines  to  the  Hospital  of  San  Juan  de  Dios  for  four  years  by 
Governor  Marquina  on  July  10,  1789.  The  cofrfidia  had  held  this 
encomienda  for  ten  years,  and  on  its  petition  the  governor  made  this 
additional  concession,  subject  to  royal  confirmation  (A.  I.,  107-5-18). 
The  above  episode  is  at  variance  with  the  statement  of  Bancroft 
(History  of  Central  America,  I,  264)  that  the  encomienda  system 
came  to  an  end  in  1721.  Helps  states  that  the  encomienda  system 
"remained  in  full  force  until  the  reign  of  Charles  The  Third  of 
Spain,  at  which  period,  it  appears,  it  was  annulled." — See  Helps 
Spanish  conquest,  IV,  240. 


Encomienda  and  Property  Suits  111 

contador,  recommended  to  the  king  that  Saramiento  should  be 
allowed  to  retain  the  encomiendas  for  another  term,  and  it  was 
accordingly  done,  a  royal  order  to  that  effect  being  expedited 
on  May  29,  1715. 

It  is  notable  how  frequently  the  action  of  the  audiencia  or 
that  of  the  governor  was  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
In  most  of  the  cases  which  have  been  described,  the  original 
papers,  including  letters,  autos  and  testimowios,  each  expe 
dient e08  containing  from  one  hundred  to  two  thousand  pages,  are 
marked  "seen  by  the  Council",  "action  of  the  governor  con 
firmed",  or  "no  action  to  be  taken";  the  original  decisions  being 
thus  confirmed.  It  may  be  concluded,  therefore,  from  this  brief 
study  that  the  audiencia  had  appellate  jurisdiction  as  a  court  of 
law  over  suits  involving  encomiendas,  and,  furthermore,  that 
the  tribunal  acting  in  that  capacity  placed  a  very  effective  and 
definite  check  on  the  governor  in  his  executive  control  over 
encomiendas. 

Property  suits,  aside  from  those  involving  encomiendas,  were 
numerous.  One  noted  case  may  be  cited  in  which  the  heirs  of 
Governor  Fausto  Cruzat  y  Gongora  in  1703  brought  suit  to 
recover  money  owed  by  Gaspar  Sanchez  and  Bernardo  de  Guiros 
to  the  ex-governor.  The  audiencia  failed  to  award  the  sum, 
which  approximated  8000  pesos.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  and  the  decision  was  reversed,  the  plain 
tiffs  being  awarded  the  money  originally  sued  for,  with  costs 


<J8  Expcclientcs  are  defined  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  LIT,  72,  note  28,  as 
"all  the  papers  belonging  to  any  matter,  judicial,  legislative,  or  execu 
tive,  consisting  of  orders,  opinions,  reports,  and  all  other  measures."  A 
testimonio  is  a  duly  attested  and  certified  statement  or  number  of  state 
ments  submitted  as  proof  or  evidence  concerning  a  given  matter.  Testi- 
monios  include  transcripts  of  letters,  ccdulas,  autos,  and  expedientes  on 
a  particular  subject,  usually  bound  together.  They  may  extend  over  a 
period  of  a  hundred  years  or  more,  showing  step  by  step  the  factors 
leading  up  to  the  formulation  of  any  auto,  or  cedula,  or  given  as  reasons 
for  a  particular  action  taken  by  an  official  or  tribunal.  Testimonies 
form  a  large  part  of  the  material  in  the  Archive  of  the  Indies.  They 
are  of  the  same  value  as  originals,  and  they  are  certainly  more  avail 
able  and  legible  because  frequently  more  recently  written. 


112  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

of  suit.  A  similar  case  was  brought  by  the  children  and  heirs 
of  Governor  Bustamante  against  Juan  de  Nebra,  general  of  the 
galleon.  The  case  was  tried  in  the  audiencia  and  the  tribunal 
decided  in  favor  of  the  defendant.  The  case  was  appealed  to 
the  Council  of  the  Indies  and  the  decision  was  reversed.69  In 
1736  Gaspar  Thome,  a  Frenchman,  sued  the  estate  of  a  deceased 
debtor,  Juan  de  Olerte,  for  2000  pesos.70  The  case  was  appealed 
to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  fully  two  hundred  pages  of 
documentary  material  exist,  carefully  annotated  and  digested,. 
to  show  how  thoroughly  and  with  what  formality  a  suit  of  even 
that  small  import  was  tried.  We  have  already  noted  the  tend 
ency  of  the  government  to  discourage  the  appeal  of  property 
suits  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  jurisdiction  of  the 
audiencia  was  final,  for  the  most  part,  in  suits  involving  sums 
from  200  to  6000  pesos. 

As  matters  of  trade  were  always  important  in  the  life  and 
politics  of  the  Islands,  commercial  suits  commanded  a  large 
share  of  the  attention  of  the  audiencia.  Up  to  1769  the  juris 
diction  of  the  audiencia  was  supreme  in  matters  relating 
thereto,71  but  on  December  13  of  that  year  a  consulado  was 
established  at  Manila,  thereby  relieving  the  audiencia  of  much 
of  its  former  control  over  commercial  affairs.72  The  consulado, 
from  the  time  of  its  establishment,  was  an  ever-present  thorn  in 
the  side  of  the  audiencia  and  conflicts  over  the  respective  juris 
dictions  of  the  tribunals73  were  continually  arising.  We  may 


69  Inventario,  op.  cit. 

70  Note  the  appeal  of  a  case  involving  less  than  6000  pesos,  which 
was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  Indies.     (Reoopilacion,  5-13-1). 

71  Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  Estadismo,  I,  245. 

72  Decree  for  establishment  of  the  Consulado,  in  Manila,  December 
13,  1769,  A.  I.,  108-3-17. 

73  The  consulado  was  an  organization  of  the  merchants  of  certain 
authorized  cities  of  the  Spanish  empire.     A  consulado  had  to  be  estab 
lished  by  royal  authorization.     The  tribunal  of  the  consulado  was  com 
posed  of  two  consuls  and  a  prior,  who  were  chosen  for  terms  of  two 
years  and  one  year  respectively.     They  were  chosen  by  twelve  electors 
who  in  turn  were  designated  by  the  members  of  the  consulado.     The 


Commercial  Suits:    The  Co-nsulado  113 

briefly  cite  one  or  two  cases  to  illustrate  the  respective  jurisdic 
tions  of  the  audiencia  and  the  tribunal  of  the  consulado.  On 
December  26,  1806,  action  was  brought  by  two  Spaniards  against 
the  British  firm  of  Jacob  Smith  and  Company  on  account  of  the 
inferior  quality  of  goods  sold  to  the  plaintiff  by  that  firm.74 
Suit  was  brought  originally  in  the  audiencia,  but  the  consulado 
applied  to  the  governor  for  jurisdiction  in  the  case  on  the  ground 
that,  as  a  commercial  suit,  it  should  be  tried  in  the  consulado.75 
The  governor  awarded  jurisdiction  to  the  audiencia.  The  con 
sulado  re-appealed  the  case,  but  the  Council  sustained  the  gov 
ernor's  decision  on  the  ground  that  this  was  a  suit  between  a 
private  individual  and  a  merchant  which  should  be  tried  in  the 
audiencia,  the  tribunal  which  usually  tried  cases  between  in 
dividuals.  The  function  of  the  consulado,  the  royal  decree 
stated,  was  to  try  suits  of  a  commercial  character  which  arose 
between  merchants.76 

An  occasion  on  which  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  was 
unquestioned  may  be  noted  in  the  suit  which  was  appealed  to 
the  Council  of  the  Indies  from  the  audiencia  in  1698,  over  the 
wrecking  of  the  galleon  "San  Francisco  Xavier".  The  admiral, 
Don  Esteban  Ramos,  w^as  held  accountable  for  the  silver  carried 
on  the  ship  and  the  merchants  of  Manila  sued  him  for  what 
they  had  lost  in  the  wreck.77  It  was  charged  that  Ramos  had 
landed  the  silver,  but  was  seeking  to  conceal  that  fact,  claiming 
instead  that  it  was  lost.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the  Council 
by  the  defendant.78  The  Council  referred  the  case  to  the  Junta 


tribimal  Ac  alzadas  was  composed  of  an  oidor  and  two  merchants. 
The  latter  constituted  the  final  court  of  appeal  in  the  colony  in  commer 
cial  cases  and  exception  to  their  decisions  could  be  taken  only  in  the 
Council  of  the  Indies. — Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  Estadismo,  245-246. 

74  Council  of  the  Indies  to  the  Audiencia,  January  21,  1808,  A.  I., 
105-2-18. 

75  Rccopilacion,  9-46-40. 

76  ibid.,  9-46.    This  section  of  the  laws  of  the  Indies  establishes  the 
consulados  of  Lima  and  Mexico,  and  lays  down  regulations  for  them. 

77  This  was  before  the  time  of  the  Consulado  of  Manila. 

78  Inventario,  op.  cit. 


114  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

de  Guerra™  and  that  tribunal  reversed  the  decision  of  the 
audiencia,  declaring  that  Ramos  was  a  faithful  servant  of  His 
Majesty,  and  still  a  poor  man.  There  was  no  possibility  of  his 
having  the  silver.  Ramos  was  transferred  to  the  Atlantic 
flota.80  The  royal  fiscal,  in  the  opinion  rendered  for  the  guid 
ance  of  the  junta,,  made  the  comment  that  frequently  the  oidores 
of  colonial  audiencias  were  influenced,  against  their  own  ideas 
of  justice,  by  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  most  powerful 
residents.  Such  was  possibly  the  case  in  Manila  on  this  occa 
sion.  This  statement  at  least  shows  that  those  in  control  at 
Madrid  were  aware  of  some  of  the  fundamental  weaknesses  of 
the  colonial  audiencias. 

Another  typical  case,  indirectly  connected  with  commerce, 
occurred  in  1713,  when  the  fiscal  of  the  audiencia  prosecuted 
three  captains,  Enrique  Boynont,  Fernando  Gall  and  Diego 
Brunet,  who  had  arrived  at  Cavite  in  command  of  French 
merchant  and  exploring  ships,  without  the  royal  permission  to 
trade  in  the  Islands.  These  captains,  who  were  foreigners,  of 
course,  were  charged  with  smuggling,  and  were  brought  before 
the  royal  audiencia.  The  charges  against  them  were  not  proved, 
and  in  due  time  the  cases  were  dismissed.81  The  laws  of  the 
Indies  authorized  the  governor  and  the  alcaldes  del  crimen  to 
try  cases  of  strangers,82  but  in  Manila,  where  there  were  no 
magistrates  of  this  category,  such  cases  were  tried  by  the 
audiencia. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  commercial  suit  that  was  ever 


TO  The  Junta  de  Gucrra  was  the  committee  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  with  jurisdiction  over  military  and  naval  affairs.  When  ques 
tions  of  this  nature  came  to  the  Council  they  were  referred  to  the 
Junta,  where  decision  was  made  and  referred  back  to  the  Council. 
See  notes  17  and  36,  Chapter  VII  of  this  book. 

so  Inventario,  op.  cit. 

«i  Ibid. 

82  Rccopilacimi,  2-1-14;  see  also  9-27-35,  37,  2-2-39,  also  9-27-3,  5, 
13,  28,  29,  40,  47.  These  laws  forbid  the  entrance  of  foreign  ships  and 
individuals  to  the  ports  of  the  Indies. 


Commercial  Suits:    The  Consulado  115 

tried  in  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  came  before  that  tribunal  in 
1656,  when  several  residents  of  Mexico  were  excluded  from  the 
use  of  the  galleon  and  their  goods  confiscated.  This  action  was 
in  accordance  with  repeated  cedillas  and  regulations  which  re 
served  the  space  in  the  galleon  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the 
Manila  merchants  and  authorities.  Mexican  traders,  who  had 
from  time  to  time  shipped  goods  on  the  galleons,  were  forbidden 
to  crowd  out  the  Manila  merchants,  who  depended  on  that  trade 
exclusively.  The  fine  levied  on  this  occasion  amounted  to 
273,133  pesos.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies,  the  aforesaid  decision  was  upheld,  and  the  sum  was 
finally  ordered  paid  in  Mexico.83 

During  the  greater  part  of  the  audiencia's  existence  there 
was  no  consulado  in  Manila  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia 
in  commercial  cases  extended  to  suits  between  merchants  for 
space  on  the  galleon.  The  tribunal  had  jurisdiction  over  the 
trial  of  officials  for  dishonesty  in  the  assignment  of  galleon 
space :  investigations  of  officials  charged  with  reserving  more 
than  their  due  share  of  space,  and  such  other  cases  as  are  men 
tioned  in  the  laws  of  the  Indies  as  being  the  concern  of  the 
c&nsulados  of  Lima  and  Mexico.84  Officers  of  the  galleons  were 
tried  for  mistreating  seamen,  for  smuggling,  for  exceeding  the 
limit  of  merchandise  allowed,  for  giving  passage  to  lewd  women 
and  to  persons  travelling  on  the  galleons  without  permis 
sion.  They  were  tried  for  carrying  more  slaves  than  they  were 
allowed  by  law  to  carry,  for  charging  exorbitant  prices  of  pas 
sage,  and  for  failing  to  turn  in  accounts  of  money  collected. 
Commanders  were  often  held  criminally  responsible  for  care 
lessness  in  navigation  and  for  shipwrecks.  These  cases  were 
tried  in  the  tribunal  of  the  consulado  after  1769. 


M  Real  Acuerd'O  de  n  de  Julio,  1656,  A.  I.,  67-6-22.  (The  final  ac 
tion  of  the  Council  is  indicated  without  date  on  the  margin  of  the 
auto  of  the  Audiencia.) 

s*  Recopilacion,  9-46-28;  9-45-13. 


116  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

The  audiencia  had  appellate  jurisdiction  over  all  residents 
of  the  colony,  both  natives  and  Spaniards.  All  crimes  committed 
within  five  leagues  of  the  city  of  Manila  were  ordered  to  be 
tried  by  the  oidores  in  first  instance,85  but  unless  they  were  of 
extraordinary  importance,  special  investigators,  usually  alcaldes 
may  ores  or  alcaldes  ordinarios,  were  delegated  to  try  them  in 
the  name  of  the  audiencia.86  As  already  stated,  most  of  the 
criminal  cases  arising  in  the  colony  were  tried  in  first  instance 
in  the  provinces  by  the  alcaldes  may  ores.  Cases  appealed  to  the 
audiencia  were  reviewed  in  that  tribunal.  The  trial  consisted 
of  an  examination  of  the  summary  or  abstract  of  the  case  as  it 
was  originally  tried  by  the  lower  judge  and,  if  errors  were  found 
to  exist,  the  decision  was  either  reversed  or  the  case  was  re 
manded  to  the  judge  who  first  had  tried  the  case,  for  second 
trial.87  The  audiencia  did  not  try  the  case  with  the  defendant 
present.  It  merely  reviewed  the  proceedings  of  the  lower  judge. 
Criminal  cases  were  not  ordinarily  appealable  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies. 

The  procedure  in  criminal  cases  was  generally  so  similar  to 
that  already  described  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  give  any  illustra 
tion  of  the  audiencia 's  criminal  jurisdiction.  Most  of  the  cases 
that  eventually  reached  the  audiencia  involved  Spaniards,  native 
caciques,  and  half-castes.  Natives  who  were  charged  with  rob 
bery,  murder,  and  crimes  of  a  depraved  nature  were  usually  of  a 
class  unable  to  finance  appeals  to  the  audiencia.  This  fact  prob 
ably  accounts  for  the  scarcity  of  criminal  cases  appealed  during 
the  first  two  centuries  of  the  audiencia 's  existence.88  However, 


85/&UL,  2-15-111. 

86  lUd.,  71. 

87  Foreman,  Philippine  Islands,  241.     The  laws  regulating  the  trial 
of  cases  on  appeal  may  be  noted  in  Recopilacion,  5-9,  10,  11,  12,  13. 

ss  The  following  figures  have  been  taken  from  various  reports  of  the 
audiencia  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  they  show  the  number  of 
criminal  cases  tried  in  the  tribunal  in  the  years  designated; 

1710 —  51  cases report  dated  December    11,  1711;   A.  I.,  105-2-9. 

1774 —  34       «  "  "  "  25,  1776;   ibid.. 


Official  Favoritism  117 

the  reforms  of  the  nineteenth  century  brought  an  increased  num 
ber  of  cases  into  the  audiencia  by  systematizing  the  administra 
tion  of  justice,  differentiating  the  judgeships  from  adminis 
trative  offices,  and  providing  for  greater  facility  of  appeal.89 

It  is  probable  that  in  criminal  as  well  as  in  civil  cases, 
Spaniards  derived  considerable  benefit  from  the  fact  that  the 
audiencia  was  composed  of  magistrates  of  their  own  nation 
ality.  High  officials,  no  doubt,  escaped  the  consequences  of 
their  misdeeds  more  easily  than  did  men  of  more  modest  social 
and  political  attainments.  This  is  shown  by  the  well-known 
case  of  the  murder  by  Governor  Fajardo  of  his  wife  on  July 
21,  1621;  this  came  up  before  an  audiencia  which  was  com- 


1776 —  48  cases report  dated  March,  1778;    ibid. 

1779—  53  '  July  30,  1780;       " 

1786—  99       '  <«.        May  lf  1778;   A    I;  105-2-10. 

1789—  51       '  "        June  4,  1790;      " 

1795—  38       '  "        April  4,  1798;      " 

1822—641       '  "        July  3,  1823;    A.  I.,  106-4-21. 

According  to  Desdevises  du  Dezert  ("Vice-rois  et  capitaines  generaux 
des  Indes  espagnoles,"  in  Revue  historique  CXXVI,  59,  60)  the  Audien 
cia  of  Lima  decided  89  civil  cases  on  appeal  from  February  11,  1788,  to 
January  5,  1789.  At  the  end  of  this  period  there  were  122  cases  waiting 
on  the  docket.  In  the  chamber  of  first  instance  of  the  same  audiencia 
72  cases  were  tried  and  124  remained  to  be  tried  at  the  end  of  ap 
proximately  the  same  period.  In  the  criminal  sala  during  the  year 
1788,  there  were  7  death  sentences  rendered,  16  sentences  for  robbery, 
14  cases  tried  involving  personal  injury,  15  for  carrying  arms  in  face 
of  the  prohibition  of  the  law,  and  6  cases  of  adultery.  The  magistrates 
excused  themselves  for  this  rather  contemptible  showing  by  alleging 
that  the  membership  of  the  tribunal  had  not  been  complete,  to  which 
the  king  made  answer  that  there  would  have  been  sufficient  judges  had 
not  the  latter  continually  absented  themselves  on  the  smallest  pre 
texts.  The  charge  of  indolence  was  also  frequently  brought  against 
the  magistrates  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila. 

89  See  colcccii'm  legislatira  de  Eftpaila,  LXIV,  105-147  (Royal  De 
cree  of  January  30,  1855).  Cedula  of  December  6,  1858,  in  Rodriguez 
San  Pedro,  Diccionario  de  legislation  ultra  marina,  VII,  69.  Ccdula  of 
March  10,  1857,  ibid.,  VIII,  39.  Royal  Decree  of  July  4,  1861,  Coleccion 
Icgislativa  de  Eapaila.  LXXXVI,  1-45.  The  basic  principle  of  these  re 
forms  are  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  of  1812,  Martinez  Alcubilla, 
Diccionario,  III,  408-458,  and  in  Las  Ordenanzas  Nuevamente  Forma- 
das  para  el  Regimen  y  Govierno  interior  de  la  Audiencia  National  de 
Manila  en  cumplimiento  de  la  Ley  de  9  de  Octre  de  1812,  sobre  arreglo 
de  tribunales.  A.  I.,  106-4-19. 


118  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia, 

posed  of  judges  who  were  largely  under  the  governor's  domi 
nation.  The  tribunal  gave  the  matter  a  cursory  investigation, 
after  which  the  governor  was  allowed  to  go  unpunished.90  We 
shall  see  that  proceedings  were  different,  however,  when  offi 
cials  under  investigation  were  charged  with  offenses  against  the 
government.  The  reside-new,  which  dealt  with  such  charges, 
was  a  pitiless  form  of  inquisition  in  which  the  officiating 
magistrate  was  in  duty  bound  to  find  his  victim  guilty,  if 
possible. 

Criminal  cases  of  a  character  slightly  different  from  those 
described  above  were  prosecuted  by  the  government  for  the 
infraction  of  any  governmental  regulation,  or  for  the  evasion 
of  the  payment  of  taxes  or  duties.  The  collection  of  revenues 
devolved  upon  the  oficiales  reales  and  they  were  ordered  to 
accomplish  their  duties  in  this  particular,  if  possible,  without 
the  assistance  of  the  courts.91  Numerous  cases  did  come  up 
in  the  audiencia,  howrever,  involving  the  prosecution  of  indi 
viduals  for  violations  of  the  alcabala,  quint  o,  and  the  tax  on 
the  export  of  silver  (comis-os).  Persons  assisting  in  the  ap 
prehension  of  violators  of  these  laws  were  rewarded  with  a 
part  of  the  proceeds  of  the  fine,  the  remainder  becoming  the 
property  of  real  hacienda.  On  October  6,  1783,  the  final 
jurisdiction  in  cases  of  smuggling  and  non-payment  of  the 
king's  fifth  was  taken  from  the  audiencia,  appeals  being  auth 
orized  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.92 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  services  of  an  oidor 
as  special  auditor  de  guerra.  This,  as  well  as  other  matters 
relating  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor  and  captain-gen 
eral  over  military  matters,  wherein  the  audiencia  had  no 
authority,  will  be  noted  when  an  examination  is  made  of  the 


oo  Blair  and  Robertson,  XX,  35-43,  147,  168,  196-198. 
si  Recopilacion,  8-10-16. 

02  Cedillas  of  October  6,  1783,  and  of  November  19,  1805,  A.  I.,  105- 
2-18. 


Limitations  and  Restrictions  119 

relations  of  the  governor  and  audiencia  in  a  subsequent 
chapter.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that  the  audiencia  did  not  have 
jurisdiction  as  a  court  over  soldiers  or  military  affairs. 

Closely  related  to  the  subject  of  the  defense  of  the  Islands, 
and  the  exercise  of  judicial  authority  over  soldiers  was  the 
special  jurisdiction  which  the  governor  had  over  matters  relat 
ing  to  the  Chinese.  This  subject  will  be  treated  in  greater 
detail  when  we  discuss  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the 
governor. 

During  the  first  two  centuries  of  its  existence  the  audiencia 
had  jurisdiction  as  a  judicial  tribunal  in  the  cases  and  in 
stances  which  have  been  noted.  It  had  civil  and  criminal 
authority,  original  and  appellate.  Its  decisions  were  final  in 
civil  suits  on  claims  for  six  thousand  pesos  or  less.  Criminal 
cases  were  settled  in  the  audiencia. 

The  judicial  authority  of  the  audiencia  was  impeded  during 
the  greater  part  of  its  history  by  the  failure  of  the  govern 
ment  to  entrust  it  with  complete  jurisdiction  in  all  civil  and 
criminal  matters,  and  by  the  tendency  of  the  latter  to  interfere 
in  matters  of  minute  and  insignificant  detail,  which  should 
have  been  left  to  the  magistrates  of  the  tribunal.  The  Consti 
tution  of  1812  and  the  reforms  made  in  pursuance  thereof 
really  effected  the  changes  which  had  long  been  needed.  The 
audiencia 's  jurisdiction  was  made  final  in  all  civil  suits  and 
increased  in  administrative  cases;  thereafter  no  appeals  were 
made  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  unless  they  involved  admin 
istrative  law.  Cases  involving  official  dishonesty,  incapacity, 
residencia,  pesquisas,  treason,  disputes  between  audiencias  and 
other  tribunals  over  conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  and  questions  of 
the  interpretation  of  the  law  were  still  carried  to  Spain. 
These  were  important  steps  for  the  improvement  of  colonial 
judicial  procedure;  they  served  to  simplify  it,  preventing  a 
multiplicity  of  cases  from  being  carried  to  Spain  which  should 
have  been  settled  within  the  colony.  These  tardy  reforms  left 


120  The  Judicial  Functions  of  the  Audiencia 

to  the  home  government  more  time  in  which  to  occupy  itself 
with  questions  of  governmental  policy,  leaving  to  the  audi- 
encias  more  authority  and  responsibility  in  purely  judicial  mat 
ters,  thus  giving  to  them  a  greater  prestige  in  the  commonwealths 
wherein  they  were  situated. 

The  qualifications  for  the  magistracy  were  also  raised  at 
this  time,  although  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  magistrates  of 
tlie  audiencias  were  at  any  time  incompetent  or  lacking  in 
ability.  The  audiencias  of  the  colonies  were  given  equal  status 
with  those  of  the  Peninsula,  and  were,  thus  elevated  in  dignity 
and  standing  to  the  rank  of  tribunals  of  the  first  order.  The 
chief  defects  of  the  colonial  judicial  system  of  the  seventeenth 
century  were  thus  corrected,  though  somewhat  tardily.  It  is 
unfortunate  indeed  that  these  changes  applied  only  to  a  mere 
skeleton  of  Spain's  former  colonial  empire. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  discussed  the  audiencia  as  a  formal 
court  of  justice,  with  methods,  practices,  and  traditions  little 
different  from  those  of  any  tribunal  of  justice.  However,  it 
had  judicial  authority  more  extensive  and  far-reaching  than 
has  yet  been  indicated.  Among  the  different  kinds  of  cases 
over  which  the  audiencia  had  jurisdiction,  perhaps  none  was 
more  important,  and  certainly  none  was  more  exclusively 
peculiar  to  the  Spanish  judicial  system  than  suits  of  rcsidencia. 
So  distinct  and  extraordinary  was  that  phase  of  judicial  activity 
that  it  merits  consideration  apart  from  a  discussion  of  the 
audiencia 's  functions  as  an  ordinary  court  of  law.  In  the  fol 
lowing  section  we  shall  note  its  jurisdiction  as  an  adminis 
trative  court  over  suits  wherein  the  government  was  a  party 
and  wherein  the  object  was  not  only  to  punish  offenders,  but 
to  act  as  a  preventive  of  official  misconduct. 


CHAPTER   IV 

JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA;  THE 
EESIDENCIA1 

The  purpose  of  the  residencies  was  to  uphold  the  morale  of 
colonial  service  by  making  officials  answer  for  all  their  acts  in 
a  judicial  examination  held  at  the  close  of  their  terms.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  fear  of  the  residencies  was  almost  the  sole  in 
centive  to  righteous  official  conduct  or  efficient  public  service, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  audiencia  exercised  very  pronounced 
authority  in  this.  Indeed,  the  audiencia  had  general  super 
vision  in  a  semi-judicial  capacity  over  the  services  of  officials 
and  public  servants  in  the  colonies.  It  was  the  function  of  the 
audiencia  to  send  reports  to  the  court  relative  to  the  conduct, 
work,  or  attitude  of  any  employee  or  official  of  the  government, 
or  of  any  resident  of  the  colony.  These  reports  were  known  as 
informaciones  (pareceres)  de  servicio.2  The  tribunal  itself 
was  ready  at  all  times  to  hear  complaints  against  provin 
cial  governors  and  judges,  treasury  officials,  magistrates,  gov 
ernors,  or,  in  fact,  any  and  all  officials  holding  their  positions 
by  virtue  of  the  king's  commission.3  Charges  might  be  made 
by  a  wronged  party  or  by  anyone  whose  knowledge  of  an 
abuse  was  sufficient  to  justify  charges.  Heavy  penalties  were 
imposed  upon  persons  making  false  or  unsubstantiated  charges.4 
Complaints  against  alcaldes  mayores  and  corregidores  were 
most  likely  to  be  made  during  the  regular  investigation  of  the 
visiting  oidor,  which,  as  we  have  noted,  occurred  every  three 


1  See    Cunningham,    "Residencia    in    the    Spanish    colonies,"    in    the 
Southwestern   historical   quarterly,   XXI,    253-278. 

2  Ibid.,  2-33,  1,  6;   literally,  a  report  on  character  of  services. 
s  Ibid.,  5-11. 

4  Ibid.,  notes  1  to  4. 


122      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

years,  but  sufficient  complaint  might  be  made  to  justify  the  dis 
patch  of  a  special  investigator  at  any  time.5 

The  findings  of  the  above  inspections  might  be  reviewed  by 
the  audiencia  and  lead  to  the  suspension  and  dismissal  of  the 
official  under  investigation.6  The  final  action  had  to  be  con 
firmed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies  in  case  the  person  con 
cerned  were  a  royal  appointee,  but  in  these  matters  the  action 
of  the  local  officials  was  usually  approved.  For  the  removal 
of  oidores  and  oficiales  reales  a  slightly  different  method  was 
pursued.  A  magistrate  of  the  audiencia  was  designated  to  in 
vestigate  the  case,  the  evidence  was  submitted  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies  and  final  action  was  taken  by  it  and  not  by  the 
audiencia.7  Any  and  all  charges  brought  against  an  official  in 
these  investigations,  even  though  he  were  cleared  at  the  time, 
might  be  revived  in  the  residencia. 

Suspensions  from  office  were  made  by  the  governor  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  audiencia.  The  governor  had  the 
legal  right  to  make  temporary  removals,  but  on  account  of  the 
seriousness  of  such  an  act,  and  the  considerations  depending 
upon  it,  he  usually  preferred  to  have  the  support  of  the 
magistrates  in  the  matter.  The  governor,  as  vicepatron,  could 
suspend  prelates  and  other  church  officials,  but  he  seldom,  if 
ever,  exercised  his  powers  to  the  full  extent.  The  audiencia 
at  Manila,  on  the  other  hand,  actually  drove  the  archbishop 
from  the  city  on  various  occasions.  The  suspension  and  the  re 
moval  of  members  of  the  ordinary  clergy  from  their  districts 
was  a  frequent  occurrence,  but  churchmen  wrere  not  subject  to 
residencia.  The  audiencia  had  no  authority  to  suspend  or  re 
move  the  governor,  though  the  magistrates  could  and  frequently 
did  bring  charges  against  the  governor  which  led  to  his- dis 
missal.  Governors  actually  suspended  and  removed  oidores  at 


2-31-1. 
5-12-9. 
7  Ibid..  5-11-6;   see  also,  5-12-14. 


Eemoval  of  Officials  123 

times,  though  such  acts  were  protested  as  violations  of  the  law 
which  authorized  only  the  Council  of  the  Indies  to  remove 
these  officials. 

Briefly,  the  procedure  in  making  these  removals  was  as 
follows :  the  governor  and  audiencia  investigated  the  conduct  of 
an  official  whenever  circumstances  demanded  it ;  the  latter  was 
either  suspended  and  recommended  for  removal,  such  recom 
mendations  being  made  by  the  audiencia  to  the  governor  or 
to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  according  to  the  rank  of  the 
official,  or  the  tribunal  could  make  the  removal  itself.8  If 
exception  to  the  action  of  the  audiencia  were  taken,  all  the 
papers  relative  to  the  case  were  forwarded  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies,  and  if  good  reasons  were  found  to  exist  for  the  ac 
tion  of  the  lower  court  the  Council  approved  its  action.9  This, 
was  not  the  residencies  as  usually  considered. 

Of  the  various  authorities  at  our  disposal,  Bancroft  gives 
the  most  acceptable  characterization  of  the  residencia.  He 
defines  it  as  an  examination  held,  or  an  account  taken,  of  the 
official  acts  of  an  executive  or  judicial  official  within  the  prov 
ince  of  his  jurisdiction  during  the  term  of  his  incumbency. 
This,  Bancroft  says,  was  done  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  of 
office  or  at  stated  periods,  or,  in  case  of  malfeasance,  at  any 
time.10  The  principle  underlying  the  institution  of  the  rcsiden- 


s  Ibid.,  5-15-36  to  39;   7-1-10  to  13. 

0  Ib  id.,  5-12-7  to  9. 

10  Bancroft,  History  of  Central  America,  I,  250-1.  Special  em 
phasis  should  be  placed  upon  the  last  clause  of  the  above  definition. 
The  periodical  residencia  was  not  the  sole  means  for  the  removal  of 
officials  in  the  Spanish  colonies.  The  conclusion  seems  to  have  been 
reached  by  many  historians  that  officials  were  permitted  to  conduct 
themselves  carelessly,  running  their  offices  to  suit  their  own  personal 
convenience  from  the  date  of  their  appointment,  in  the  assurance  that 
their  tenure  was  sure  until  the  termination  of  a  specified  term,  and 
that  the  periodical  residencia  was  the  only  occasion  on  which  they 
might  be  held  to  answer  for  their  sins.  Only  the  most  scant  attention 
has  been  given  by  modern  writers  to  the  residencia.  See  Bourne, 
"Historical  introduction,"  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  I,  50-52;  Moses, 
Establishment  of  Spanish  rule  in  America,  172;  Vander  Linden, 
L'expansion  coloniale  de  I'Espagne,  349. 


124       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

cia  was  bequeathed  to  the  Spaniards  by  the  Romans,  being  similar 
to  and  probably  derived  from  their  law  which  gave  the  right  of 
accusation  to  any  Roman  citizen  against  an  office-holder.  The 
residencia  was  conducted  by  a  judicial  official,  and  it  combined 
the  features  of  a  general  survey  of  the  career  of  the  official 
under  investigation,  an  auditing  of  his  accounts  and  a  formal 
trial.  Its  purpose  was  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  official 
had  faithfully  executed  his  duties  and  it  served  to  clear  him 
if  he  were  proved  honest,  giving  him  a  clean  certificate  of 
recommendation.  If  he  were  found  guilty  of  official  misconduct 
or  dishonesty  he  was  apprehended,  degraded,  and  punished, 
according  to  his  deserts. 

Professor  Bourne  has  written  in  regard  to  the  rcsidencm: 

The  residencia  .  .  .  was  an  institution  peculiar  in  modern  times  of 
the  Spanish  colonial  system.  It  was  designed  to  provide  a  method  by 
which  officials  could  be  held  to  strict  accountability  for  all. acts  during 
their  term  of  office.  .  .  .  To  allow  a  contest  in  the  courts  involving  the 
governor's  powers  during  his  term  of  office  would  be  subversive  of  his 
authority.  He  was  then  to  be  kept  in  bounds  by  realizing  that  a  day  of 
judgment  was  impending,  when  everyone,  even  the  poorest  Indian, 
might  in  perfect  security  bring  forward  his  accusation.  In  the  Philip 
pines  the  residencia  for  a  governor  lasted  six  months  and  was  con 
ducted  by  his  successor  and  all  the  charges  made  were  forwarded  to 
Spain.  .  .  .  The  Italian  traveller  Gemelli  Careri  who  visited  Manila 
in  1696  characterizes  the  governor's  residencia  as  a  "dreadful  Trial", 
the  strain  of  which  would  sometimes  "break  their  hearts." 

Professor  Bourne  stated  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  Do  Pons 
that  "the  severities  of  the  residencia  could  be  mitigated,  and 
no  doubt  such  wras  the  case  in  the  Philippines.  By  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century  the  residencia  seems  to  have  lost  its 
efficacy."" 

It  is  important  to  note  at  the  outset  that  the  residencia  was 
not  conducted  periodically  alone,  but  that  it  might  be  held  at 


11  Bourne,  "Historical  introduction,"  Blair  and  Robertson,  I,  51-52; 
see  De  Pons,  Voyage,  II,  25;  Churchill,  Voyages,  IV,  427-428;  see  also 
Barrows,  "The  governor  general  of  the  Philippines,  under  Spain  and 
the  United  States,"  in  TJie  Pacific  Ocean  in  history,  246. 


The  Pesquisa  125 

any  time  in  the  career  of  an  official.  The  term  pesquisa  was 
applied  to  the  form  of  residencia  which  was  carried  out  by 
a  special  investigator  (pesquisidor),  sent  when  serious  charges 
were  made  against  the  conduct  of  an  official.12  In  the  in 
vestigation  which  took  place  the  official  might  be  fined,  or  if 
grave  offenses  were  proved,  he  might  be  removed  from  office. 
Appeals  might  be  made  from  the  pesquisidor  to  the  audiencia 
and  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  In  fact,  the  judgments  of 
the  pesquisidor  were  always  reviewed  in  the  local  tribunal  un 
less  the  investigating  judge  had  been  commissioned  by  the 
Council  of  the  Indies. 

The  distinction  which  has  been  made  here  between  the 
formal  residencia  which  occurred  at  the  close  of  the  term  of 
office  and  the  pesquisa  which  might  take  place  whenever  serious 
charges  were  made,  was  first  emphasized  in  laws  promulgated 
by  Charles  V  in  1538,  and  by  Philip  II  in  1591 ;  these  aimed  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  excesses  of  certain  governors,  corregidores, 
and  ministers  of  justice,  who,  relying  on  the  practice  then 
prevailing  of  taking  residencias  only  at  the  close  of  the  official 
term,  had  committed  unlimited  excesses.  The  new  laws,  above 
referred  to,  stated  that  although  it  had  never  been  the  royal 
wish  that  residencias  of  royal  appointees  should  be  taken 
without  notice  having  been  sent  first  to  the  monarch,  the  above 
circumstances  had  made  it  necessary  for  them  to  be  taken 
when  charges  were  made.  This  cedilla,  therefore,  authorized 
the  taking  of  residencias  whenever  the  best  interests  of  the 
service  required  it.13 

This  cedula  was  followed  by  another  which  forbade  the 
sending  of  special  investigators  or  judges  of  residencia  against, 
governors  of  provinces,  unless  persons  of  responsible  character 
presented  charges  against  them,  giving  bonds  to  cover  the  costs. 
An  investigator  was  thereupon  sent  to  conduct  the  trial  of  the 


12  Recopilacion,  7-1;  2-15-117. 
id.,  5-15-19. 


126       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

official  under  examination.14  This  matter  is  covered  in  slightly 
different  terms  in  the  law  of  June  19,  1620.  According  to  that 
enactment,  a  receptor15  might  be  sent  to  conduct  the  prelimi 
nary  investigations  of  corregidores  and  ordinary  justices  when 
these  demanded  instant  attention  and  could  not  await  ihe 
formal  residencia.  If,  as  a  result  of  this  inquiry,  the  guilt  of 
the  official  seemed  apparent,  a  more  complete  investigation  was 
made  by  a  judge  appointed  by  the  president  and  audiencia  in 
acuerdo.™ 

The  authority  to  determine  whether  cases  merited  investiga 
tion  or  not  and  whether  an  inquiry  should  be  made,  belonged 
to  the  acuerdo,  while  the  designation  of  the  judge  rested 
with  the  governor.17  The  judges  sent  on  these  missions 
were  not  at  first  authorized  to  pass  final  sentence,  their  deci 
sions  being  subject  to  review  in  the  audiencia  before  execution. 
However,  by  the  law  of  May  5,  1576,  this  added  authority  was 
bestowed  upon  the  oidores  who  conducted  special  investigations, 
or  residencias.18  Appeals  might  be  made  to  the  audiencia  and, 
if  the  sentence  imposed  the  death  penalty  or  permanent  re 
moval  from  office,  the  appeal  might  be  carried  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies.19  The  final  approval  of  the  Council  was  required 
before  action  could  be  taken  with  regard  to  any  royal  appointee, 
except  in  those  cases  wherein  the  fine  did  not  exceed  one 
thousand  pesos.20 

The  mdores,  it  seems,  did  not  always  act  as  impartial 
judges  when  entrusted  with  these  investigations;  they  were 


20. 

is  A  receptor  was  a  clerk  of  court,  who  on  special  authorization  or 
commission  of  a  tribunal  was  dispatched  to  institute  judicial  proceed 
ings  on  behalf  of  the  court. — Escriche,  Diccionario,  II,  794. 
is  Recopilacion,  7-1-16. 
17  lUd.,  5-15-21. 
7-1-14. 
5-12-31. 
5-15-38. 


Preliminary  Investigation  127 

often  influenced  by  the  extra  reward  obtained  for  these  serv 
ices,  and  frequently  by  prejudice  against  the  officials  under 
investigation.  Such  were  the  charges  implied  by  Governor 
Fajardo  in  1619  when  he  wrote : 

It  is  always  to  be  believed  that  the  auditors  (oidores)  to  whom  the 
inquiries  are  entrusted,  ought  to  make  them,  not  only  as  judges,  but  as 
interested  parties,  so  that  sinister  inquiries  should  not  be  sent  to  your 
Majesty's  royal  Council  to  defraud  your  royal  treasury  and  the  merits 
of  those  who  have  served  well,  I  assure  your  Majesty  that  I  have 
heard  that  many  inquiries  have  been  made  with  less  justification  than 
might  be  advisable.ai 

A  typical  illustration  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia 
in  an  investigation  of  this  sort,  and  of  the  delay  to  which  the 
minor  officials  were  subjected,  is  shown  in  the  case  of  Antonio 
Pimeiitel,  governor  of  the  Marianas,22  whose  residencia  was  taken 
in  the  decade  following  1711.  In  this  case  may  be  seen  the 
distinction  between  the  formal  residencia,  conducted  at  the 
close  of  the  regular  term  of  office,  and  an  investigation  of 
charges  brought  during  the  incumbency  of  the  official.  This 
case  illustrates  both  forms  of  investigation,  for  it  originated  in 
a  charge  of  treason  brought  against  Pimentel,  who,  it  was  said, 
had  furnished  food  and  water  to  the  crewrs  of  two  English 
vessels,  enemies  of  Spain,  and  subsequently  these  same  ships 
had  captured  the  galleon,  "Nuestra  Serlora  de  la  Encarnacion". 
The  conduct  of  the  case  was  given  to  magistrate  Torralba,  who, 
on  his  arrival  at  Guam,  sent  Pimentel  in  chains  to  Manila. 
Notwithstanding  his  defense  of  ignorance  of  a  state  of  war 
existing  between  Spain  and  England,  he  was  sentenced  to  the 
forfeiture  of  the  bonds  which  he  had  posted  on  assuming  office, 
and  in  addition  was  deprived  of  his  position  as  governor  at 
Guam.  This  sentence  was  rendered  January  23,  1712,  and  was 


21  Faiardo  ,to   Felipe    III,   August    10,    1619;    Blair    and    Robertson, 
XVIII,  276. 

22  The  Marianas  were  the  islands   of  the   Ladrone   Group   situated 
1200  miles  east  of  the  Philippines. 


128       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencies 

approved  by  the  audiencia  in  review  on  July  24,  1714.23  The 
tribunal  sentenced  Pimentel  to  prison  and  ordered  that  his 
residencia  should  be  taken ;  accordingly,  an  examination  was 
made  of  all  his  official  acts  as  governor.  Pimentel,  therefore, 
had  not  only  to  stand  investigation  for  the  particular  act 
which  had  brought  about  his  removal,  but  he  was  also  sub 
jected  to  a  residencia  covering  his  entire  career  as  governor.  It 
may  be  noted  that  the  twro  forms  of  investigation  were  sepa 
rate  and  distinct  on  this  occasion. 

Owing  to  the  death  of  Governor  Lizarraga,  to  the  im 
prisonment  of  Oidor  Villa,  and  to  the  state  of  anarchy  sur 
rounding  the  administration  of  Torralba  as  governor,  Pimentel 
was  forced  to  languish  in  prison  several  years  while  he  waited 
residencia.  The  appointment  of  Luis  de  Tagle  as  his  successor 
and  judge  of  residencia  was  dated  June  25,  1717.  This  occa 
sion  was  one  on  which  the  successor  of  a  governor  took  his 
predecessor's  residencia,  owing,  the  commission  said,  to  the 
distance  and  the  irregularity  of  communication  between  Manila 
and  Guam.  A  letter  of  the  audiencia,  dated  August  9,  1718, 
advised  the  governor  that  there  were  427  unfinished  cases  on 
the  docket  of  the  tribunal,  and  chief  among  those  that  ought 
to  be  decided  without  delay  was  the  review  of  the  residencia 
of  Pimentel ;  it  was  added  that  there  seemed  to  be  no  prospect 
that  a  boat  could  get  to  Guam  before  1719.  The  record  of  the 
termination  of  this  case  probably  reposes  somewhere  in  the 
archives,  tied  in  an  aged,  yellow  packet,  bound  by  Spanish  red 
tape. 

In  summary,  it  may  be  said  that  there  w7ere  two  kinds  of 
investigations  of  official  conduct,  one  taken  at  the  completion 
of  the  regular  term  of  office  and  the  other  at  any  time  when 
the  needs  of  the  service  required  it.  They  both  had  the  same 
ultimate  purpose  of  holding  officials  responsible  for  misconduct 


23  Expediences  relatives  a   la  resid-cncia  de  Don  Antonio  Pimentel, 
Govcrnador  de  las  Marianas,  A.  I.,  68-4-17  and  18. 


Applicability  of  the  Residcncia  129 

in  office,  of  giving  to  all  persons  an  opportunity  of  having 
justice  done  to  them  and  of  deterring  office-holders  from  future 
misdeeds. 

Practically  all  of  the  colonial  officials  were  subject  to  resi- 
dencia.  The  most  sensational  and  widely  known  residencias 
were,  of  course,  those  of  viceroys  and  captains-general,  but 
oidores,  treasury  officials,  encomenderos,  alcaldes  nmyores,  cor- 
regidores,  admirals,  generals,  captains,  and  constructors  of 
galleons  were  likewise  examined  in  this  way.24  The  visitors 
and  special  investigators  who  were  sent  to  examine  the  govern 
ment  of  the  provinces  and  the  state  of  the  Indians  on  the  en- 
comiendas  were  also  subject  to  residencies.  Residencias  were 
exacted  of  all  minor  officials  at  the  same  time  that  their 
superiors  were  examined.23  Clerks,  notaries,  secretaries,  al 
caldes  ordinarios,  regidores,  and  other  officials  of  a  minor  cate 
gory  were  investigated  at  the  same  time  that  the  governor  was 
examined,  an  alcalde  or  an  oidor  being  delegated  by  the  new 
president  to  review  their  official  conduct.  The  examination  of 
these  minor  officials  seems  to  have  become  more  and  more  per 
functory  and  there  was  a  tendency  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century  to  continue  them  in  office,  even  without 
investigation.  When,  for  instance,  Governors  Basco  y  Vargas 
and  Marquina  gave  up  their  offices  this  formality  was  omitted.26 
The  practice  of  taking  the  residencias  of  minor  officials  was 
definitely  abandoned  on  August  24,  1799,  and  a  rigid  inspec 
tion  by  the  audiencia  of  their  official  acts  was  authorized.-7 

Much  contradictory  legislation  appears  in  the  laws  of  the 
Indies  relative  to  the  method  of  taking  residencias;  this  due  to 


2*  Rccopilacion,  5-15-3,  4,  8,  10-18. 

25  Ibid.,  5-15-11,  24. 

26  Having  been  excused  by  the  cedillas  of  July  7,  1789,  and  January 
15,  1795,  A.  I.,  105-2-5. 

-"  Recopilacion,  5-15,  notes  4,  11.  When  the  rcsidencia  of  a  viceroy 
or  president  was  taken,  the  oidores  were  also  held  responsible  for  all 
opinions  given  conjointly  with  him  in  the  ocuerdo. 


130      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencies 

the  reforms  made  from  time  to  time.  These  laws  were  formu 
lated  for  a  growing  empire.  A  chronological  review  of  them 
will  show  that  the  residencies  was  at  first  more  or  less  of  an 
experiment.  Indeed,  all  the  colonial  institutions  were  in  the 
early  periods  passing  through  an  experimental  stage  and  these 
seemingly  contradictory  laws  were  promulgated  or  repealed, 
according  to  their  success  or  failure  when  put  into  effect. 
Whenever,  therefore,  two  laws  appear  to  be  in  conflict,  the  one 
of  later  date  will  be  found  to  supersede  and  repeal  the 
earlier  one.28  In  illustration  of  this  characteristic  of  the  laws  of 
the  Indies  we  may  note  the  following  example :  The  cedula  of 


28  Sinibaldo  de  Mas,  the  able  Philippine  critic  of  the  nineteenth  cen 
tury,  says  in  regard  to  the  above  characteristic  of  the  Recopilacion 
and  its  laws:  "Since  the  Leyes  de  India*  are  not  a  constitutional 
code,  but  a  compilation  made  in  the  year  1754  [a  footnote  amends  this 
statement  with  the  information  that  the  Recopilacion  was  first  made  in 
1681]  of  royal  orders  despatched  at  various  epochs  and  by  distinct 
monarchs,  .  .  .  there  results  ...  a  confusion  of  jurisdictions." 
—Mas,  Internal  political  condition  of  the  Philippines,  Blair  and  Rob 
ertson,  LII,  70. 

Dr.  James  Alexander  Robertson,  in  his  article  on  "Legaspi  and 
Philippine  colonization"  (see  American  Historical  Association,  Annual 
report,  1907,  I,  150  and  note),  characterizes  the  laws  of  the  Indies  as 
"that  mass  of  contradictory  legislation,"  largely  "ecclesiastical  in  tone," 
ill-digested,  and  "utterly  at  variance  with  one  another."  Dr.  Robertson 
also  states  that  "it  is  from  a  too  close  following  of  these  laws  and  a 
too  great  neglect  of  actual  conditions  that  writers  on  the  colonial 
policy  of  Spain  have  at  times  fallen  into  error."  On  the  other  hand,  it 
may  be  said,  that  not  enough  use  has  been  made  by  modern  writers  of 
the  laws  of  the  Indies,  and  there  is  need  of  such  investigation  as  will 
test  that  oft-repeated  statement  that  the  laws  of  the  Indies  were  not 
enforced.  Up  to  the  present,  Latin  American  scholarship  has  been 
content  with  a  rehashing  of  Helps  and  Prescott,  for  the  early  periods, 
omitting  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth 
altogether,  and  fixing  on  Juan  y  Ulloa,  Robertson,  and  Humboldt  as  the 
great  all-determining  authorities  for  the  latter  periods  of  Spanish 
colonization.  These,  indeed,  have  been  supplemented  by  a  few  ecclesi 
astical  histories,  each  of  which  has  been  written  to  prove  a  particular 
thesis.  The  present  writer  dares  to  believe,  after  some  attempt  to 
harmonize  the  laws  of  the  Indies  with  actual  practice,  that  these 
laws  were  actually  used  as  a  basis  of  colonial  government,  and  that, 
while  not  always  effectively  enforced,  they  were  by  no  means  a  dead- 
letter  until  Spain  actually  lost  her  colonies  and  are  not  today,  for  it  is 
easy  to  see  in  the  laws  of  the  Indies  the  fundamentals  of  the  institu 
tions  of  present-day  Spanish  America. 


Method  of  Taking  the  Residencia  131 

December  4,  1630,  ordered  that  the  residencia  of  the  governor 
.should  be  taken  by  his  successor.  This  law  was  seldom,  if  ever, 
observed.  Owing  to  the  distance  from  Spain  and  New  Spain, 
and  the  consequent  length  of  time  consumed  in  voyages,  to  the 
unhealthful  climate,  and  to  the  dangerous  military  campaigns  in 
which  the  governors  were  compelled  to  engage,  death  frequently 
intervened  before  the  successor  of  a  governor  arrived.  These 
conditions  (which  were  characteristic  of  all  of  Spain's  colonies) 
did  not  prevent  the  residencia  from  being  taken,  but  caused  the 
law  to  be  modified  by  the  cedilla  of  December  28,  1667,  according 
to  which  judges  for  the  residencias  of  viceroys  and  presidents- 
governor  and  captains-general  were  to  be  designated  by  the 
court.  The  period  of  four  months,  which  had  been  authorized 
for  the  taking  of  res-idencms  by  the  ccdula  of  August  30,  1582, 
was  extended  to  six  months.29  A  change  was  necessary,  the 
new  law  declared,  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  incessant 
strife,  and  the  malice  which  had  been  shown  by  viceroys,  gover 
nors,  and  ministers  in  the  taking  of  residencias.  The  king  deter 
mined  that  henceforth  the  judge  of  residencias  should  be  desig 
nated  by  the  court.  The  magistrate  usually  named  was  the 
decano.  After  1776  the  regent  almost  invariably  conducted 
these  investigations.  The  important  reform  of  August  24, 
1799,  ordered  that  judges  of  residencia  for  governors,  vice 
roys,  presidents,  governors-intendant,  corregidor-intendants,  and 
presidents  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  should  be  appointed  by 
the  king.30 

The  first  residencia  to  be  conducted  in  the  Philippines  in 
accordance  with  the  new  law  of  November  28,  1667,  was  that  of 
Governor  Salcedo,  in  1670.  This  governor  had  been  removed 
by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition  on  October  10,  1668,  and 
Francisco  Coloma,  the  decano,  was  ordered  to  take  his  rcsi- 


29  Recopilacion,  5-15-1. 

30  Ccdula  of  August  24,  1799,  in  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Leglslacinn 
ultramarina,  III,  280-281. 


132       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

dencia.31  Coloma's  intervention  in  the  matter  was  protested 
by  the  audiencia  in  a  letter  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  dated 
April  7,  1670,  011  the  grounds  that  the  senior  oidor  was  also 
the  asesor  and  possible  successor  of  the  governor,  and  for  that 
reason  he  was  disqualified  from  taking  the  latter 's  residential2 

The  audiencia  suspended  the  proposed  action  of  Coloma, 
pending  the  reply  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  In  addition  to 
the  protest  of  the  audiencia,  the  fiscal,  on  May  20,  1670,  sent 
a  report  of  the  case  to  the  court,  which  act  was  in  fulfillment 
of  his  regular  duties  as  fiscal,  as  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the 
Indies.33  The  notes  from  Manila  were  effective  in  bringing 
about  the  desired  results.  Upon  receipt  of  the  communications, 
the  Council  of  the  Indies,  on  June  17,  1671,  ordered  the  nul 
lification  of  all  former  cedillas,  cancelled  Coloma's  appointment 
to  take  the  residencies  in  question,  on  the  grounds  that  he  had 
been  the  governor's  ascsor,  and  appointed  Fernando  de  Monte- 
mayor,  the  oidor  next  in  rank,  to  conduct  the  residencia  of  the 
governor.34  Salcedo  had  already  been  dead  three  years,  and 
two  more  transpired  before  his  residencia  was  completed  and 
the  autos  thereof  reviewed  by  the  Council. 

The  laws  provided  ample  opportunity  for  appeal  in  cases  of 
residencia.  The  cedula  of  November  17,  1526,  ordered  that 
appeals  might  be  made  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  from 
judges  of  residencia  in  cases  involving  liabilities  in  excess  of  600 
pesos.35  Many  appeals  were  made  to  the  Council  in  accord  with 
this  law,  and  the  time  of  the  tribunal  was  consumed  in  the 


si  Papeles  relatives  a  la  residencia  del  gobernador  Salcedo.  In- 
ventario,  op.  cit.;  also  A.  I.,  67-6-10,  67-6-11,  67-3-4. 

32  Since  all  legal  advice  was  furnished  the  governor  by  his  asesor, 
Coloma  would  be  examining  his  own  acts. 

ss  Recopilacion,  2-18-27. 

34  Cedula  of  June  17,  1671,  A.  I.,  82-6-10.     In  view  of  these  proceed 
ings,   Salcedo's  letter   of   June   25,    1665,   in   praise  of  the   services   of 
Coloma  and  Montemayor  is  interesting  (A.  I.,  67-6-9). 

35  Recopilacion,  5-12-8;   2-16-46,  provided  for  appeal  of  cases  carry 
ing  death  penalty. 


Appeals  133 

consideration  of  matters  comparatively  of  small  importance. 
To  obviate  this  defect  the  law  was  changed  on  August  7,  1568, 
to  provide  that  no  case  could  be  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  unless  the  sentence  imposed  capital  punishment  or 
deprivation  of  office/'6  The  cedula  of  June  23,  1608,  ordered 
that  if  the  fine  imposed  upon  the  governor  and  ministers  of 
the  Philippines  did  not  exceed  one  thousand  pesos  the  case 
should  be  finished  in  the  audiencia/'7  Cases  involving  a  greater 
amount  were  to  be  appealed  to  the  Council.  Sentence  of 
judges  of  residencia  were  not  to  be  executed  pending  the  trial 
of  appeals  to  the  audiencia  and  the  Council  of  the  Indies.38 
Philip  IV  initiated  further  reforms  in  regard  to  appeal  in 
1636.  Ordenanza  LVI,  promulgated  at  that  time,  provided 
that  "the  said  Council  [of  the  Indies]  may  only  have  jurisdic 
tion  over  the  visits  and  residencias  of  the  viceroys,  presidents, 
oidores,  and  officials  of  our  audiencias  and  accountants  and 
officials  of  the  tribunals  of  accounts,  officials  of  the  treasury 
and  those  of  the  governors  provided  by  the  Council  with 
our  titles."39  Ordenanza  LXII,  issued  at  the  same  time, 
ordered  that  "in  the  visits  and  residential  which  are  seen 
and  determined  in  our  Council  of  the  Indies,"  cases  did  not 
have  to  be  referred  to  the  king  for  consultation,  excepting 
when,  in  "the  residencias  of  viceroys,  presidents,  and  oidores, 
alcaldes  del  crimen,  and  fiscales  of  our  royal  audiencias  of  the 
Indies  and  governors  of  the  principal  provinces  there,  con 
demnations  of  corporal  punishment,  privation  or  suspension 
from  office  result  against  them."40  In  these  cases  the  Council 
was  ordered  to  submit  its  decisions  and  all  papers  bearing 
thereon  to  the  king  before  passing  judgment,  so  that  the  final 
judgment  might  be  rendered  by  the  sovereign  in  person.  T'he 


5-12-31. 

5-15-38. 

39. 

^  Ibid.,  2-2-58. 
40  /bid,,  64. 


134      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia-;  the  Residencia 

Council  could  take  final  action  in  the  rcsidencias  of  military 
and  naval  officials  \vithout  consulting  the  king.  It  was,  of 
course,  impossible  for  the  sovereign  to  give  his  personal  atten 
tion  to  any  of  these  matters,  but  the  last  word  was  pronounced 
in  these  suits  by  responsible  ministers  of  the  court  wrho  stood 
high  in  the  royal  estimation. 

Officials  were  usually  obliged  to  submit  to  residencia  before 
leaving  the  colony,  also  before  their  promotion  to  higher 
posts.41  Owing,  however,  to  the  paucity  of  ships  plying  to 
New  Spain  and  to  the  length  of  time  elapsing  between  sailing 
dates,  officials  could  give  bonds  and  leave  before  the  reside ncia 
was  completed.42  This  was  permitted  only  to  men  of  good 
character,  whose  services  had  been  uniformly  satisfactory,  and 
who  were  destined  to  some  other  post  wherein  their  services 
were  indispensable.  The  investigation  wras  then  conducted  in 
the  absence  of  the  official  concerned.43  It  was  decreed  by  the 
cedula  of  December  30,  1776,  that  an  annual  deduction  of  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  salary  of  the  governors  and  viceroys  respec 
tively  should  be  made,  until  sufficient  money  had  been  taken 
out  to  cover  the  probable  costs  and  liabilities  of  their  resi- 
dencias.4*  This  was  a  special  assessment,  distinct  from  the 
media  anata4*  and  the  money  deducted  thereby  was  to  be  re- 


42  There  were  two  kinds  of  bonds,  those  posted  at  the  beginning  of 
a  term  of  office,  and  special  bonds  of  rcsidencia,  given  at  the  time  of 
that  investigation.     The  last-mentioned  were  not  required  if  the  office 
were   not   a    responsible    one   or   if   the   charges    were   not    sufficiently 
serious. 

43  Rccopilacwn,   5-15-3;    this   cedula  was  annulled  by  that  of  May 
21,  1787;   see  note  to  law  3  of  the  same  title. 

44  King  to   Basco  y   Vargas,   December   30,   1776    (A.    I.,    107-5-20). 
These  annual  deductions  of  one-fifth  were  first  authorized  on  August 
26,  1757,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.     They 
were  discontinued  by  the  co-nsulta  of  March  2,  1773,  it  being  ordered 
that  governors  should  only  post  the  customary  bonds  with  the  presi 
dent  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.     We  see  here  that  the  practice  was 
restored  on  December  30,  1776.     This  requirement  seems  to  have  been 
confined  to  governors  of  the  Philippines  (A.  I.,  105-2-21). 

45  Recopilacion,  8-19;    see  notes  11  and  13,  Chapter  V  of  this  book. 


Bonds  of  Residencia  135 

turned  if  nothing  detrimental  were  proved  in  the  residencia. 
The  last  year's  salaries  of  alcaldes  may  ores  and  corregidores 
were  withheld,  pending  investigations  of  their  official  conduct 
and  a  rendering  of  accounts  of  collections  made  by  them.40  If 
an  official  were  cleared  of  all  guilt,  the  money  which  had  been 
withheld  was  returned  and  the  costs  of  residencia  were  de 
frayed  by  the  royal  treasury.47  In  case  the  official  were  found 
guilty  of  misconduct,  he  had  to  forfeit  his  deposits,  back-salary, 
bonds,  and  frequently  to  pay  a  large  fine  in  addition.  The 
amount  of  the  penalty,  of  course,  depended  on  the  extent  of 
the  guilt.  It  may  be  said  that  in  the  Philippines  the  royal 
treasury  suffered  no  serious  embarrassment  through  having  to 
bear  costs  of  residencia. 

The  judges  of  residencia  who  served  as  such  in  addition  to 
their  regular  duties,  received  an  additional  compensation  which 
varied  according  to  the  place  where  the  residencia  was  held, 
its  distance  from  the  capital,  and  other  circumstances.48  This 
was  modified  by  a  reform  of  the  nineteenth  century  which 
awarded  extra  pay  only  in  the  case  the  official  were  fined. 
This,  of  course,  was  intended  to  afford  the  examining  judge  a 
stimulating  interest  in  the  case.  Still  later  the  system  of  giv 
ing  extra  pay  for  residencias  was  abolished.49 

A  detailed  survey  of  the  governor's  residencia  in  the  Philip 
pines  would  illustrate  the  influence  of  the  audiencia  in  such 
investigations.  Unfortunately  the  story  would  be  long  and 
little  space  remains  for  such  a  purpose.  During  the  first  two 
centuries  of  Spanish  rule  in  the  Islands  the  residencias  of  the 
governors  were  especially  stringent,  many  of  these  officials 
suffering  deprivation  of  office,  imprisonment,  and  exile.  The 


46  Recopilacion,  8-26-17. 

47  Ibid.,  5-15-42. 
43  Ibid.,  note  12. 

4<J  Royal  decree  of  November  20,  1841,  in  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legis- 
lacion  ultra  marina,  I,  282;  see  also  royal  order  of  December  3,  1844 
(for  Cuba),  ibid.,  287. 


136       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

families  and  dependents  of  some  were  reduced  to  the  last  ex 
treme  of  poverty,  while  the  victims  themselves  spent  years  in 
some  distant  province,  unable  to  defend  themselves  from  their 
enemies.  Many  victims  of  the  residencia  were  purposely  put 
aside  in  order  that  no  appeal  could  be  heard  from  them.  One 
would  occasionally  find  relief  at  last  in  a  tardy  pardon  or  in 
a  modification  of  sentence,  obtained  through  friends  at  home, 
when  these  could  be  reached,  but  more  often  death  would  in 
tervene  before  the  exercise  of  executive  clemency  or  revision 
of  sentence  could  be  obtained. 

The  factors  of  petty  spite,  malice,  and  personal  ambition 
entered  to  an  extensive  degree  in  the  rendering  of  testimony 
at  a  residencia.  A  governor,  recently  arrived  in  the  colony, 
would  be  full  of  zeal  and  ardor  to  inaugurate  a  successful 
administration,  and  make  a  good  record  for  himself.  The  first 
duty  that  presented  itself  on  his  arrival  was  that  of  taking  or 
supervising  his  predecessor's  residencia.  Frequently,  before 
arriving  at  Manila,  the  new  governor  would  be  in  full  posses 
sion  of  a  complete  record  of  the  misdeeds  of  his  predecessor, 
and  the  residencia  of  the  latter  was  as  good  as  taken.50 
Oidores,  merchants,  alcaldes,  treasury  officials,  and  churchmen, 
compelled  to  stand  aside  and  see  a  governor  take  his  choice 
out  of  the  best  things,  leaving  for  them  only  the  husks,  were 
not  slow  in  bringing  charges  at  the  official  residential1  A 


so  Officials,  desirous  of  ingratiating  themselves  into  the  favor  of  the 
new  executive,  frequently  journeyed  by  land  and  sea  from  Manila  as 
far  as  the  Straits  of  San  Bernardino.  The  privilege  thus  gained  of 
returning  to  Manila  in  company  with  the  new  governor,  gave  them 
the  unrestricted  or  unqualified  opportunity  to  poison  his  mind  with 
tales  of  the  misdeeds  of  the  incumbent,  and  insinuations  as  to  the 
wealth  which  the  latter  had  heaped  up  for  himself  through  the  exer 
cise  of  dishonest  methods. 

51  The  residencia  of  a  governor  presented  a  splendid  opportunity 
to  his  enemies  for  revenge.  A  governor  was  always  in  a  fair  way  to 
make  enemies;  consequently  any  such  awaited  the  residencia  of  their 
former  oppressor  with  great  eagerness.  In  case  a  governor  did  make 
fair  profit  out  of  his  office,  and  there  were  many  opportunities  for 


Residencia  of  the  Governor  137 

new  governor,  desirous  of  demonstrating  his  intention  of  start 
ing  an  honest  and  vigorous  administration,  hearing  nothing 
but  evil  of  his  predecessor,  would  naturally  lend  himself  as  an 
instrument  to  the  malcontents.  A  fiscal,  after  spending  six 
years  in  conflict  with  a  governor,  could  be  depended  on  to 
bring  strenuous  prosecution  against  him.  A  magistrate  with 
enmity  in  his  heart  for  the  governor  whose  residencia  he  was 
to  take,  was  no  fit  person  to  conduct  an  impartial  investigation. 

While  as  a  rule  the  residencias  of  governors  were  severe, 
due  largely  to  the  presence  of  the  audiencia,  that  of  Dr.  Sande, 
the  first  governor  to  submit  to  this  investigation,  illustrates  the 
evils  of  the  residencia  as  conducted  before  the  establishment 
of  the  audiencia.  His  successor,  Governor  Ronquillo  de 
Perialosa,  conducted  Sande 's  residencia  and  sentenced  him  to 
pay  a  heavy  fine,  but  he  appealed  the  case  to  the  Audiencia 
of  Mexico,  by  which  tribunal,  in  the  meantime,  he  had  been 
commissioned  o-idor.  We  have  noted  in  an  earlier  chapter 
Ronquillo's  comments  on  the  abject  state  into  which  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice  had  fallen  when  a  man  could  be  pro 
moted  to  a  magistracy  in  a  tribunal  which  had  jurisdiction 
over  his  own  case  on  appeal.52  However,  after  the  establish 
ment  of  the  audiencia,  and  until  the  close  of  the  nineteenth 


profit,  commercial  and  otherwise,  legitimate  and  illegitimate,  his 
enemies  gave  him  no  rest  at  the  time  of  his  residencia.  (According 
to  Martinez  de  Zufiiga  \Estadismo.  I,  242]  the  emoluments  of  the  gov 
ernor,  aside  from  his  salary,  aggregated  20,000  pesos  a  year.)  It  is  prob 
able  that  most  of  the  governors  were  dishonest,  as  the  opportunities  for 
corruption  were  numerous,  and  the  temptations  offered  by  the  position 
-were  too  powerful  to  be  resisted  by  any  human  being.  Thousands  of 
miles  from  Spain,  in  an  age  of  slow  communication,  entrusted  with 
the  assignment  of  all  sorts  of  lucrative  offices,  encomiend-a^.  and  com 
mercial  privileges,  and  having  friends,  relatives,  and  special  interests 
to  serve,  a  governor  was  surrounded  by  countless  officials  who  were 
eagerly  awaiting  their  share  of  booty,  and  who  were  ready  at  a 
moment's  notice  to  turn  traitor  if  they  could  gain  by  such  an  act.  It 
may  be  said  of  the  Spanish  colonial  governor  as  was  said  of  Verres  of 
old,  that  in  stealing,  one  must  steal  threefold,  once  for  himself,  once 
for  his  judges,  and  once  to  pay  the  penalty. 
52  Chapter  II  of  this  book. 


138       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

century,  the  residencia  went  to  the  other  extreme,  and  was,  as 
a  rule,  exceedingly  rigorous. 

AVe  may  briefly  note  a  few  of  the  most  severe  residencias 
in  which  the  influence  of  the  audiencia  told  against  the  victim. 
In  1625,  Geronimo  de  Silva,  temporary  governor,  was  impris 
oned  by  the  audiencia  because  he  failed  to  pursue  the  Dutch 
after  their  defeat  in  1617.  The  real  difficulty  lay  in  the 
fact  that  Silva  had  incurred  the  enmity  of  the  senior  oidor, 
who  ultimately  conducted  the  residencia.,  because  Silva 's  ar 
rival  in  the  Islands  deprived  that  magistrate  of  the  command 
of  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the  Islands.  Again,  Gov 
ernor  Corcuera,  after  nine  years  of  very  successful  rule,  during 
which  he  distinguished  himself  in  several  campaigns  of  con 
quest  and  incidentally  aroused  the  hostility  and  jealousy  of  the 
oidores,  was  arrested  on  charges  made  by  the  audiencia  on  the 
arrival  of  Governor  Diego  Fajardo  in  1644.  An  oidor,  who  was 
the  personal  enemy  of  Corcuera,  was  designated  to  conduct  the 
residencia,  the  ex-governor  was  fined  25,000  pesos  and  was  im 
prisoned  five  years  while  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  de 
layed  the  transmission  of  the  papers  which  permitted  a  rehear 
ing  of  the  case.  At  last  his  defense  was  sent  to  the  Council, 
the  fine  was  remitted,  he  was  given  salary  for  the  period  of  his 
exile,  and  the  post  of  governor  of  the  Canaries  wras  conferred 
upon  him.  Although  the  audiencia  was  responsible  for  the 
injustice  in  this  case,  Fajardo,  as  president  and  governor,  was 
held  answerable  in  his  own  residencia  for  his  coii'duct  toward 
his  predecessor. 

Governor  Simon  de  Anda  y  Salazar,  one  of  the  most  suc 
cessful  governors  the  Islands  had  ever  known,  was  made  to 
suffer  from  the  personal  malice  of  the  oidores  when  he  gave 
his  last  residencia-  in  1776. 53  Among  the  offenses  which  were 


•~>3  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historic,  general,  II,  253-258.     Anda,  as  it  will 
be  noted  later,  spent  an  earlier  term  of  service  in  the  Philippines.     He 


Residencies  of  the  Governor  139 

proved  against  him  was  that  of  exercising  prejudice  in  conduct 
ing  the  residencia'  of  Oidor  Villacorta,  conducted  under  his 
supervision.  The  residencia-  had  been  rigorous,  due  no  doubt  to 
personal  enmity  between  the  aider  and  the  governor,  extending 
over  a  period  of  many  years.  He  was  also  fined  4000  pesos  as  a 
price  for  his  excessive  zeal  in  the  prosecution  of  the  residencia 
of  his  predecessor,  Governor  Raon,  who  had  friends  in  the  audi- 
encia  to  defend  his  memory  and  champion  his  cause.54  Anda 
was  also  shown  to  have  absolved  certain  officials  of  real  haci 
enda  of  financial  responsibility,  permitting  them  to  leave  the 
Islands  without  the  consent  of  the  audiencia.  These  and  other 
charges  proved  against  him  were  said  to  have  caused  his  pre 
mature  death  in  1776. 

Governor  Jose  Basco  y  Vargas,  another  very  efficient  gov- 


first  came  to  the  Philippines  during  the  administration  of  Governor 
Arandia,  as  oidor  of  the  audiencia.  He  had  therefore  been  obliged  to 
submit  to  residencia  on  a  previous  occasion;  in  1764  a  review  was  made 
of  his  official  conduct  as  oidor.  and  especially  of  his  acts  in  defiance  of 
Archbishop  Rojo,  in  setting  up  claims  to  the  governorship  of  the  Islands 
and  resisting  the  British.  His  conduct  was  approved,  and  he  received 
high  honor  and  promotion  at  the  court,  being  advanced  to  member 
ship  in  the  Council  of  Castile.  On  November  19,  1769,  he  was  granted 
an  annual  pension  of  3000  pesos  for  life.  On  September  8,  1777,  this 
pension  was  continued  in  favor  of  his  eldest  son  (A.  I.,  106-4-4). 

">4  Anda  had  more  than  the  usual  number  of  residencies  to  super 
vise  at  the  beginning  of  his  term.  Owing  to  some  misapprehension  on 
the  part  of  his  predecessor,  Governor  Raon,  no  residencia  was  re 
quired  of  La  Torre,  the  leniente  del  rcy  who  took  over  the  govern 
ment  in  1764.  Owing  to  the  anarchical  condition  in  Manila  consequent 
upon  the  invasion  of  the  British,  and  the  ecclesiastical  rule  preceding 
that  event,  neither  Arandia,  Espeleta,  nor  Rojo  had  given  rcsidencia. 
The  audiencia  and  Raon  in  acuerdo  on  October  26,  1768,  voted  that 
governors'  residencias  should  be  dispensed  with,  and  apparently  be 
lieved  that  this  action  settled  the  matter.  On  November  9,  1770,  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  disapproved  of  this  stand,  fined  Raon  (who  had 
died  the  preceding  July),  and  ordered  Anda  to  take  the  residential  of 
Arandia  (governor.  1754-1759),  Espeleta  (archbishop-governor,  1759- 
1761),  Rojo  (archbishop-governor,  1761-1764),  Oidor  Villacorta,  and 
Governor  Raon.  These  orders  he  complied  with,  conducting  the  in 
vestigations  with  his  characteristic  thoroughness,  though  Rojo  and 
Raon  were  dead.  Villacorta  was  imprisoned  and  heavily  fined.  The 
sentences  against  Arandia,  Raon  and  Villacorta  were  moderated 
by  the  Council  of  the  Indies  on  September  9,  1772. — A.  I.,  105-2-31. 


140      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencies 

ernor,55  but  one  who  had  been  opposed  throughout  his  term  of 
office  by  the  audiencia,  was  heavily  fined  in  1787  by  the  oidor 
designated  to  conduct  the  investigation.  The  decision  of  the 
judge  of  residencia  was  reversed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies, 
however,  and  Vargas'  exceptional  merits  were  recognized  to  the 
extent  of  his  being  appointed  to  the  governorship  of  Cartagena, 
with  the  rank  of  rear  admiral.  In  taking  the  residencia  of 
Vargas,  the  audiencia  had  disagreed  so  completely  that  the 
tribunal  was  obliged  to  resort  to  the  extreme  measure  of  ap 
pointing  a  churchman  as  arbiter.  Fray  Geroiiimo  Caraballo, 
the  curate  of  Quiapo,  was  designated  for  that  duty. 

Aside  from  the  above  brief  references  to  notable  cases  in 
which  the  audiencia  exercised  jurisdiction  over  the  residencias 
of  governors,  allowing  itself  to  be  influenced  by  considerations 
other  than  those  of  justice,  it  seems  desirable  to  review  in  de 
tail  at  least  one  case  of  the  residencia  of  a  governor,  to  show 
more  particularly  just  what  authority  was  exercised  by  the 
tribunal,  and  just  how  that  authority  was  exercised. 

We  may  select  for  this  purpose  the  residencia  of  Governor 
Felix  Beringuer  de  Marquina,  which  wras  the  last  to  be  con 
ducted  under  the  old  laws,  and  the  last,  according^,  of  the 
severe  residencias. ,56  As  governor  and  superintendent  of  real 
hacienda  Marquina  assumed  such  power  as  110  other  governor 
had  ever  exercised.  He  was  opposed  at  every  turn  by  the 


55  As  we  shall  note   in  another  chapter,   Jose  Basco  y   Vargas   in 
augurated  the  reforms  of  the  intendancy  in  the  Philippines,  retaining 
the  post  of  governor,  while  Ciriaco  Gonzales  Carvajal  was  first  intend- 
c-nte  dc  guerra  y  real  hacienda. — A.  I.,  105-3-5  and  107-5-19;  see  Chap 
ter  V,  note  20,  of  this  work. 

56  This   residencia   was   held    under   the    same    laws   that    had    pre 
vailed  throughout  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.     A  feature 
common  to   them   all,   particularly,   was   the   fact   that   the   regent,   or 
some  other  colonial  magistrate  conducted  the  investigation  and  gave 
sentence,  which  might  be  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.     This 
gave  an  opportunity  for  great  injustice  to  be  done  to  the  governor  by 
his  enemies,  and  it  did  not  give  him  an  impartial  hearing.     The  laws 
of  1799  still  permitted  a  local  magistrate  to  collect  the  evidence,  but 
tHe  decision  was  rendered  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 


Residencies  of  the  Governor  141 

audieneia  and  probably  no  other  governor  ever  had  so  many 
of  his  measures  vetoed  or  opposed  by  the  home  government  as 
he.  The  fiscal  and  oidores  brought  many  charges  against  him ; 
these  finally  culminated,  before  the  expiration  of  his  term,  in 
the  royal  order  of  February  19,  1792,  for  the  taking  of  his 
residencia.  The  regent,  Agustin  de  Amparan,  was  put  in  pos 
session  of  the  special  charges  which  had  been  made  against 
Marquina.  According  to  these  the  governor  had  been  careless 
in  defending  the  Islands  against  the  Moros,  who  had  insulted 
and  robbed  with  impunity  the  various  settlements,  with  no 
effort  having  been  made  to  check  their  advance.  The  governor 
had  transgressed  in  numerous  instances  the  sphere  of  the 
audiencia  and  had  substituted  his  own  authority.  He  was  said 
to  have  been  guilty  of  immoral  relations  with  certain  Spanish 
women  of  the  colony,  having  deliberately  and  maliciously  sepa 
rated  an  intendant  from  his  wife  on  one  occasion  by  ordering 
the  former  to  a  post  of  duty  where  no  woman  could  go;  he 
had  amassed  a  great  fortune  through  trade  and  by  diverting 
the  proceeds  of  the  royal  revenue  to  his  own  private  advantage ; 
he  had  permitted  merchants  to  conduct  business  without  proper 
licenses ;  he  had  allowed  foreign  merchants  to  remain  in 
Manila  under  conditions  forbidden  by  law.57  These  and  many 
others  were  the  charges  brought  against  Governor  Marquina. 
They  may  be  considered  as  typical  of  the  accusations  which 
were  usually  brought  against  governors  in  their  residencias. 
Amparan  was  commanded  by  the  royal  order  above-men 
tioned  to  remove  Marquina  to  some  spot  outside  Manila  where 
he  could  not  interfere  with  the  residencia,  but  whence  he  could 
be  summoned  at  any  time,  to  give  testimony  in  his  own  be 
half.58  The  regent  was  instructed  to  ascertain  from  the  treas 
ury  officials  whether  Marquina  should  not  be  required  to  post 
more  than  the  usual  amount  of  bonds  in  view  of  the  grave 


57  Audieneia  to  the  King,  June  28,  1791,  A.  I.,  108-4-18. 

ss  Instructions  to  Amparan,  February  19,  1792,  A.   I.,  105-2-10. 


142       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

charges  against  him.  It  seems  that  the  law  already  cited  re 
quiring  an  annual  deduction  of  one-fifth  of  the  governor's 
salary  to  cover  residencia  had  been  abrogated  by  a  royal  order 
dated  February  13,  1782 ;  hence  there  was  some  apprehension 
lest  Marquina  had  not  deposited  sufficient  money.59 

In  compliance  with  these  orders  Marquina  was  relieved  of 
his  office  in  September,  1792,  and  was  sent  to  Laguna  de  Bay, 
about  thirty  miles  from  Manila.  After  five  months'  delay,  the 
investigation  was  inaugurated  and  it  was  concluded  by  July 
22,  1793,  but  Aguilar,  the  new  governor,  intervened  and  sus 
pended  the  sentence  on  the  ground  that  Marquina  had  not 
been  given  sufficient  opportunity  to  defend  himself.  Up  to 
this  time  Marquina  had  not  testified  directly.  Aguilar  ordered 
that  the  ex-governor  should  be  brought  to  Manila  and  that  a 
lawyer  should  be  appointed  for  his  defense.  This  was  done  and 
the  charges  which  had  been  made  against  him  were  duly  an 
swered.  This  evidence  could  not  be  incorporated  in  the 
official  papers  of  residencia,  for  they  had  been  finished  and 
closed  by  the  regent,  but  it  was  forwarded  to  Spain  under 
separate  cover.60 

The  official  papers  of  Marquina 's  residencia,  as  formulated 
by  the  regent  of  the  audiencia,  arrived  before  the  Council  of 
the  Indies  in  due  time,  together  with  Marquina 's  defense  which 


so  Instructions  were  also  given  at  the  same  time  for  investigations 
of  the  official  conduct  of  numerous  persons  who  had  been  identified 
with  the  government  of  Marquina.  Among  these  were  Helarion  Pastor, 
fiscal  de  la  real  hacienda,  Manuel  de  Sota,  contador  de  cuentas,  Fran 
cisco  Mufioz,  teniente  del  rey,  Rufino  Suarez  Rivera,  asesor.  and  Miguel 
Formento,  clerk  of  the  treasury.  A  separate  commission  was  made  for 
the  residencia  of  each  of  these. 

GO  The  just  and  honorable  conduct  of  Marquina's  successor  on  this 
occasion  may  be  contrasted  with  that  of  his  various  predecessors, 
whose  unfairness,  bigotry,  and  stupidity  had  caused  governors  Cor- 
cuera,  Silva,  and  Torralba,  victims  of  residencia,  to  be  seized,  im 
prisoned,  and  exiled  without  opportunities  for  defense,  while  their 
investigations  were  being  conducted.  This  case  serves  well  to  illus 
trate  the  fact  that  by  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  resi 
dencia  had  grown  more  humane. 


Residencia  of  the  Governor  143 

liad  been  sent  separately.  The  glaring  injustice  of  the  in 
vestigation  as  conducted  by  Amparan  and  of  the  official  evi 
dence  transmitted,  was  patent  to  the  fiscal  of  the  Council.  He 
refused  to  receive  any  testimony  not  incorporated  in  the  official 
papers  of  the  case.  Marquina  was  allowed  a  retrial  by  the 
Council.  This  resulted  in  a  further  delay  of  three  years ; 
during  this  period  Marquina  remained  in  the  provinces  with 
the  exception  of  the  time  spent  in  Manila  giving  testimony  in 
his  second  rcsidencia,  which  was  taken  under  the  direct  super 
vision  of  Governor  Aguilar.  Immediately  after  his  second 
trial  Marquina  was  transferred  to  Mexico,  but  he  was  obliged 
to  deposit  an  additional  50,000  pesos  before  his  departure  from 
Manila. 

In  the  ultimate  judgment  Marquina  was  pronounced  guilty 
of  many  offenses  in  addition  to  those  mentioned  in  the  charges 
previously  outlined.  He  had  shown  favoritism  in  the  dispensa 
tion  of  official  favors ;  he  had  authorized  the  expenditure  of 
public  money  for  private  ends ;  he  had  neglected  defense  and 
agriculture ;  he  had  been  negligent  in  the  supervision  of  the 
various  departments  of  real  hacienda  and  particularly  of  to 
bacco;  he  had  infringed  011  the  jurisdiction  of  the  royal 
audiencia.  He  had  indulged  in  private  trade  and  had  granted 
special  favors  to  foreign  merchants.61 

The  regent  fined  him  40,000  pesos  outright  and,  moreover, 
he  was  condemned  to  pay  into  the  royal  treasury  an  additional 
fine  of  16,000  pesos  to  cover  certain  illegitimate  profits  made 
through  granting  unlawful  trading  concessions  to  an  Armenian 
merchant.  This  sentence  was  not  executed  immediately,  as  it 


61  He  was  charged  with  having  entered  into  a  conspiracy  with  an 
Armenian  merchant  to  secure  trade  which  should  have  gone  to  Spanish 
merchants.  In  this  particular  venture  he  had  made  a  profit  of  16,000 
pesos  and  in  so  doing  he  had  not  only  violated  the  laws  of  the  Indies 
which  forbade  officials  to  trade  (Recopilacion,  2-16-54,  62),  but  he 
had  connived  at  the  infraction  of  another  law  which  forbade  trade  to 
foreigners  (ibid.,  9-27-1,  5,  7  and  note  2). 


144       Judicial  Functions  of  Audicncia;  the  Residencia 

had  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  On  review 
of  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  regent,  the  Council 
declared  that  since  the  proceedings  at  the  trial  of  Marquina 
had  been  irregular  and  the  governor  had  already  suffered  the 
consequences  of  his  own  misdeeds,  the  fine  imposed  by  the 
judge  of  the  residencia  in  Manila  might  be  reduced  to  2000 
pesos  with  costs  of  trial.  Marquina  on  October  12,  1797, 
asked  to  be  excused  from  the  payment  of  the  2000  pesos,  but 
the  Council  denied  his  petition,  declaring  that  he  had  been 
treated  with  great  consideration  and  mercy  and  that  nothing 
more  could  be  done  in  his  behalf,  especially  since  he  had  not 
been  adjudged  innocent  of  the  charges  which  had  been  made 
against  him.62 

Marquina 's  trial  illustrates  all  the  characteristics,  the  de 
lays,  terrors,  and  ramifications  of  a  typical  residencia  of  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  Continued  complaints 
against  him  caused  Marquina 's  residencia  to  be  taken  before 
the  expiration  of  his  official  term.  The  regent  of  the  audiencia 
was  commissioned  by  the  court  to  conduct  the  investigation 
because  Marquina 's  successor  had  not  arrived.  That  magis 
trate  was  prejudiced  against  Marquina  on  account,  of  having 
witnessed  the  governor's  continual  malfeasance  in  office.  He 
was  unable  to  conduct  an  impartial  investigation,  arid  the 
audiencia,  likewise  prejudiced,  would  not  intervene  in  behalf 
of  the  ex-governor.  The  wrongs  done  to  Marquina  in  his  trial 


62  it  is  an  interesting  commentary  on  Spanish  methods  that,  not 
withstanding  Marquina's  misgovernment  in  the  Philippines,  he  was 
promoted  to  the  post  of  viceroy  of  New  Spain,  which  position  he  held 
from  1800  to  1803. 

Desdevises  du  Dezert,  in  his  article  on  "Vice-rois  et  capitaines 
generaux  des  Indes  espagnoles"  (Revue  historiquc.  CXXV,  241),  shows 
that  Marquina  continued  his  peculations  while  viceroy  of  New  Spain, 
engaging  in  the  smuggling  trade  with  Jamaica,  and  enriching  himself 
to  the  extent  that  in  thirty-two  months  he  was  able  to  send  twelve 
million  pesos  on  his  own  account  to  Spain.  Desdevises  du  Dezert  in 
advertently  refers  to  Marquina  as  having  come  from  the  Marianas  to 
Mexico.  He  came  from  the  Philippines  and  not  from  the  Marianas. 


The  Reform  of  1799  145 

were  so  patent  that  the  Council  of  the  Indies  ordered  a  new 
hearing.  A  severe  sentence  was  finally  passed  by  the  judge  in 
Manila,  but  it  was  modified  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
through  considerations  of  justice.  The  residencia  occupied  ten 
years,  and  during  the  greater  part  of  that  time  the  ex-governor 
remained  in  exile — a  victim  of  his  own  misdeeds,  the  faulty 
residencia  system,  and  the  hostility  of  the  audieneia.  The 
customary  severity  of  the  residencia  was  only  mitigated  in  this 
case  by  the  presence  of  an  impartial  governor,  who,  unlike 
most  governors  whose  desire  was  to  harass  their  victims, 
sought  to  secure  a  fair  trial  for  his  predecessor.  To  accom 
plish  this  he  was  obliged  to  work  against,  rather  than  in  co 
operation  with  the  audieneia. 

The  above  method  of  conducting  residential  of  governors, 
presidents,  viceroys,  and  superintendents  was  modified,  as  al 
ready  mentioned,  by  the  reform  of  August  24,  1799.  The  new 
law  provided  that  the  court,  instead  of  the  new  governor, 
should  appoint  the  examining  judge.  The  latter  was  no  longer 
empowered  to  pronounce  sentence  of  any  sort.  He  was  only  to 
conduct  the  investigation  in  the  future,  remitting  the  a-utos  of 
the  case  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  for  final  determination 
and  sentence.63  Again,  on  March  16,  1797,  the  royal  order  of 
December  30,  1777,  was  re-enacted  and  the  practice  was  revived 
of  deducting  annually  one-fifth  of  the  salaries  of  officials  whose 
incomes  were  8000  pesos  a  year  or  more.64  This  law  was  again 
promulgated  on  January  18,  1848.  Its  purpose  was  to  secure 
the  retention  of  a  sufficient  sum  of  money  to  guarantee  all 
losses  incident  to  the  residencia.  It  apparently  continued  in 
force  until  July  7,  1860,  when  governors  and  captains-general 
were  declared  exempt  from  these  discounts.65 


63  Rccopilacion,  5-15,  notes  4  and  5. 

stRoales  resolucioncs  del  Conscjo,  4  dc  Marzo,  1794,  A.  I.,  106-4- 
18;  Royal  Order  of  January  18,  1848,  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation 
uUramftrina,  I,  290. 

ss  These  discounts  were   "considered  subversive  of  their   authority 


146       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

We  shall  now  examine  more  particularly  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  audiencia  over  the  residencias  of  minor  officials  of  the 
colony.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  residencias 
of  provincial  judges  and  governors,  alcaldes  ordinarios  and 
reales  oficiales  were  taken  by  judges  appointed  by  the  presi 
dent  of  the  audiencia,  with  appeal  to  the  tribunal.  These 
cases,  under  certain  circumstances,  might  be  taken  on  second 
appeal  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  practice  in  these 
investigations  may  be  best  understood  by  noting  the  develop 
ment  of  the  law  regarding  them,  for,  as  we  have  already  noted, 
the  residencia  was.  the  product  of  years  of  administrative  ex 
perience,  during  which  various  methods  were  tried,  and  re 
jected  or  adopted  as  they  were  found  respectively  inadvisable 
or  efficacious. 

The  earliest  cedilla  on  the  subject,  that  of  November  17, 
1526,  ordered  that  the  audiencia  should  try  all  appeals  from 
judges  of  residencia,  wherein  the  amount  involved  did  not  ex 
ceed  600  pesos.  A  law  of  Philip  II,  dated  1563,  forbade 
viceroys,  presidents,  and  audiencias  from  sending  judges  of 
residencia  or  other  investigators  against  judges  of  provinces, 
unless  complaint  had  been  lodged  against  those  officials  by  a 
person  willing  to  post  bonds  and  pay  the  costs  in  case  the 
charges  proved  to  be  false.66 

The  cedilla  of  September  3,  1565,  laid  down  the  principle 
that  the  residencias  of  officers  appointed  by  viceroys  and  presi- 


[that  of  the  governors];  .  .  .  the  best  guarantee  of  their  acts  is 
not  a  discount  of  some  thousands  of  pesos,  which  is  always  penurious 
when  compared  with  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  persons  called,  on 
account  of  their  elevated  character  and  distinguished  services,  to  hold 
these  posts,  and  if,  in  former  times,  this  practice  had  some  foundation 
in  the  tardiness  of  communication  between  the  Peninsula  and  these 
provinces,  it  does  not  exist  today  in  view  of  the  frequency  of  com 
munication  which  enables  said  authorities  to  consult  with  the  govern 
ment  of  Her  Majesty  in  all  the  steps  which  are  considered  necessary 
in  the  territory  of  their  command." — Royal  order  of  July  7,  1860,  in 
Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation  ultramarina,  I,  287. 
66  Recopilacion,  5-15-20. 


Provincial  Officials  147 

dents  should  be  taken  by  commission  of  those  who  appointed 
them.67  As  regularly  appointed  oorrcgidores  and  alcaldes 
mayores  held  royal  commissions,68  they  did  not,  according  to 
this  law,  give  residencia  to  judges  appointed  by  the  governor. 
The  Council  of  the  Indies,  therefore,  should  name  judges  to 
investigate  the  official  conduct  of  its  owrn  appointees.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  the  Council  delegated  this  authority  to 
the  governor  and  audiencia.  This  latter  practice  was  author 
ized  by  a  clause  in  the  cedilla  of  September  3,  1565,  which 
provided  that  residencias  of  the  officials  referred  to  should  be 
taken  under  supervision  of  the  audiencias  in  the  districts 
wherein  the  officials  resided.  This  meant  that  while  the  audi 
encia  was  not  to  interfere  in  the  taking  of  the  residencia  itself, 
the  tribunal  was  to  see  that  the  laws  regarding  residential 
were  faithfully  executed.  The  law  of  March  11,  1591,  ordered 
that  if  the  conduct  of  corregidores,  alcaldes  mayores,  and  other 
magistrates  demanded  that  their  residencias  should  be  taken 
before  the  completion  of  their  term  of  office,  the  viceroys,  presi 
dents,  or  governors  should  appoint  judges  for  the  purpose.69 
Nothing  was  said  in  this  cedilla  relative  to  the  authority  of 
the  audiencia  in  this  matter,  but  the  law  of  January  19,  1608, 
gave  to  the  audiencia  the  right  to  try  residencia  cases  on  appeal 
from  the  sentences  of  these  special  judges. 

The  laws  of  June  3  and  June  19,  1620,  provided  that  the 
governor  and  audiencia  should  decide  in  acuerdo  whether  the 
residencia  of  a  gobernador,  corregidor,  or  an  alcalde  mayor 
should  be  taken.  Neither  the  governor  nor  the  audiencia  was 
to  have  complete  authority  in  the  matter,  but  each  should  par 
ticipate,  the  audiencia  assisting  in  the  decision  as  to  whether 
the  case  merited  investigation  and  the  governor  making  out  the 
commission  and  appointing  the  judge  if  an  investigation  were 


67  ibid.,  4. 
es  ibid.,  5-2-1,  2,  7. 
5-15-19. 


148       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  tlie  Residencia 

necessary.  The  audiencia,  alone,  was  authorized  to  appoint 
judges  of  residencia  for  judicial  officers  only.70  The  interfer 
ence  of  the  audiencia  in  the  residencias  of  governors,  corregi- 
dores,  alcaldes  mayores,  and  other  justices  and  ministers  pro 
vided  by  royal  appointment  was  definitely  forbidden  by  the 
cedula  of  April  20,  1639,  as  this  jurisdiction  was  declared  to 
belong  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.71  Although  we  have  evi 
dence  that  the  Council  did  exercise  such  jurisdiction,  it  was 
always  on  review  of  cases  appealed  from  the  audiencias. 
While  the  above  prohibition  forbade  the  audiencia  from  taking 
the  residencias  of  these  officials  it  did  not  restrain  the  tribunal 
from  participating  in  the  decision  as  to  whether  a  residencia 
should  be  taken,  or  in  the  review  of  the  dittos  of  residencia. 

An  illustration  of  the  intervention  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  in  residencias  of  alcaldes  mayores  is  shown  in  the  case 
of  Josef  Tormento,  alcalde  of  Caragara.  On  June  6,  1786,  he 
was  sentenced  in  residencia  to  a  pecuniary  penalty,  perpetual 
deprivation  of  office,  and  two  years'  exile  from  Manila.  This 
sentence  was  confirmed  in  review  by  the  audiencia  on  October 
8  of  the  same  year.  The  Council  modified  this  sentence, 
however,  approving  the  fine,  but  cancelling  the  other  pro 
visions.72  In  1803  the  incumbent  of  the  same  post, 
Antonio  Mateo,  was  incarcerated  by  order  of  the  audiencia, 
pending  investigation  of  the  charge  made  against  him  that  he 
had  used  the  funds  of  his  office  for  private  trade.  It  was 
shown,  however,  that  this  official  knew  the  location  of  a  quick 
silver  deposit  of  great  value,  whereupon  the  governor  had  him 
removed  from  prison,  ordering  the  suspension  of  the  charges 
against  him,  notwithstanding  the  protests  of  the  oidorcs.  The 
fiscal  concurred  in  the  action  of  the  governor.  The  audiencia 
appealed  the  case  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  alleging  con- 


70  lUd.,  7-1-16;   5-15-21. 

7i/b«Z.,  2-15-69;   see  2-2-58,  64. 

-•2  King  to  the  Fiscal,  September  29,  1788,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 


Provincial  Officials  149 

spiracy  between  the  governor  and  the  fiscal.  The  Council, 
however,  on  examination  of  the  case,  approved  their  action, 
ordered  the  charges  to  be  dismissed,  and  gave  directions  that 
the  alcalde  mayor  should  be  restored  to  his  former  position  or 
given  another  of  equal  category  as  soon  as  possible.73 

Although  the  cedula  of  August  24,  1799,  gave  the  audiencia 
the  right  to  conduct  the  residencias  of  corregidores  and  alcaldes 
may  ores,  this  case  involved  certain  interesting  features  which 
should  be  pointed  out  in  this  connection.  In  the  first  place,  it 
shows  the  manner  in  which  the  Council  of  the  Indies  exercised 
ultimate  authority  in  matters  of  residencia.  Again,  it  reveals 
the  influence  which  the  fiscal  and  even  the  governor  might  have 
in  determining  whether  suit  should  be  brought,74  and  finally 
it  indicates  that  expediency  might  constitute  an  important  fac 
tor  in  the  ultimate  results  of  a  case  of  this  kind. 

The  practice  of  granting  jurisdiction  over  the  residencia 
of  an  official  to  the  authority  that  appointed  him  seems  to  have 
been  followed  repeatedly.  This  principle  was  enunciated  in  the 
cedula  of  August  20,  1758,  but  on  August  8,  1764,  a  royal  decree 
authorized  viceroys  and  presidents  to  name  judges  of  residencia 
for  all  officials  holding  royal  appointments,  with  the  condition 
that  the  autos  should  be  forwarded  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.  This  law  was  repealed  on  April  23,  1769. 7S 

The,  cedula  of  August  24,  1799,  which  has  been  mentioned 
several  times  in  this  chapter,  was  a  reform  of  the  greatest  im 
portance  in  the  history  of  the  residencia.  Prior  to  its  pro 
mulgation,  all  officials  had  to  give  residencia,  but  this  law 
abolished  that  universal  requirement.  It  provided  that  resi 
dencias  of  corregidorcs,  alcaldes  may  ores,  and  subdelegate- 
intendants  should  be  taken  only  when  charges  had  been  made 
against  them.  This  might  occur  at  any  time  during  their  term 


73  King  to  the  Audiencia,  October  6,  1806,  A.  I.,  105-2-18. 
-*  Recopilacion,  2-18-27. 
TO  ma.,  5-15,  note  4. 


150       Judicial  Functions  of  Audicncia;  the  Residencia 

of  office,  or  at  the  close  of  their  service.  These  investigations 
had  to  be  concluded  within  four  months,  but  if  charges  were 
not  made  against  an  official  his  past  record  was  not  inves 
tigated. 

The  length  of  time  consumed  in  all  residcncias  except  those 
of  viceroys  was  limited  to  four  months.  The  period  allotted 
for  these  investigations  was  divided  into  two  parts.76  During 
the  first  half,  edicts  or  notices  of  residencia  were  posted 
throughout  the  district  of  the  official  concerned.  These  were 
printed  in  Spanish  and  in  the  common  dialect,  so  that  natives 
and  others  concerned  might  read  and  know  that  the  official 
wras  giving  up  his  post  and  that  charges  might  be  brought 
against  him,  setting  forth  any  misconduct,  undue  harshness, 
tyranny  or  dishonesty  of  which  he  had  been  guilty  during  his 
term  of  office.  These  notices  invited  them  to  register  any 
complaints  which  they  might  wrish  to  make  and  gave  them  sixty 
days  in  which  to  do  it.  At  the  close  of  this  period  the  judge 
of  residencia  opened  an  investigation  in  the  town  wherein  the 
official  under  examination  had  resided,  usually  the  capital  of 
the  province.  The  actual  trial  of  residencia  might  consume 
sixty  days,  or  it  might  be  perfunctory  in  its  character  and 
occupy  a  much  shorter  period,  the  entire  question  of  time  de 
pending  on  the  amount  of  evidence  presented  against  the  re 
tiring  official.  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  Uie  resi 
dencia  of  a  governor  might  occupy  ten  years. 

If  the  judge  were  taking  a  residencia  in  the  provinces  he 
was  frequently  delayed  in  arriving  at  his  post  of  duty,  owing 
to  the  pressure  of  other  business,  or  to  the  uncertainty  of 
transportation  facilities.  In  that  event,  he  could  not  open  the 
judicial  investigation  until  the  allotted  period  had  almost 
transpired. 

In  the  trial,  two  distinct  lines  of  investigation  were  usually 


5-15-27  to  49. 


Conduct  of  the  Trial  151 

pursued :  charges  which  had  been  made  against  the  official 
were  investigated  and  the  records  of  his  office  were  examined. 
The  discovery  was  frequently  made  through  this  procedure 
that  the  official  had  embezzled  money  belonging  to  the  govern 
ment,  usually  investing  it  in  private  ventures.  The  inquiry 
might  show  that  he  had  been  careless  in  the  execution  of  the 
duties  of  his  office,  remiss  in  his  attention  to  encomiendas, 
particularly  neglecting  the  Indians  thereon,  or  too  ignorant 
and  incompetent  to  try  properly,  record,  and  transmit  the 
a  ut os  of  the  cases  which  had  come  to  him  in  first  instance. 
These  defects  might  not  become  apparent  until  they  were  re 
vealed  in  this  examination. 

The  judge  of  residencia  would  seem  to  have  been  well 
occupied  during  the  time  that  he  was  conducting  the  investi 
gation.  He  received  and  reviewed  all  charges  made.  In  addi 
tion  to  auditing  the  records  of  the  office,  he  had  to  pursue 
inquiries  as  to  the  truth  of  these  charges.  He  examined  wit 
nesses  both  for  and  against  the  defendant,  and  was  supposed 
to  give  the  official  under  investigation  every  opportunity  to 
defend  himself.  He  was  relieved,  however,  of  the  trouble  and 
responsibility  of  checking  up  the  financial  accounts  of  the 
official  under  residencia.  This  important  matter  was  turned 
over  to  the  treasury  officials,  who  ascertained  shortages,  and 
held  the.,  bondsmen  of  the  official  under  investigation  respon 
sible.77  The  judges  of  residencia,  and  the  oidores  making  in 
vestigations  and  reviewing  cases  of  residencia  were  ordered  to 
confine  their  examinations  to  "criminal  and  legal  matters  and 
charges  which  result  against  those  under  residencia. "7S 

After  all  the  evidence  had  been  taken  and  the  case  had  been 
duly  tried,  the  judge  of  residencia  was  authorized  to  render 
sentence.  Sentences  were  executed  by  the  examining  judge  if 


IT  Ibid.,  8-1-28;  5-15-35.    Heavy  penalties  were  prescribed  for  those 
who  offered  insecure  financial  guarantees   (ibid.,  5-15-33  to  36). 
78/&M.,  34. 


152      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencies 

the  penalty  did  not  exceed  twenty-five  thousand  maravedis. 
The  latter  cases  were  not  appealable.  If  the  fine  were  less 
than  two  hundred  ducats  and  the  defendant  desired  to  appeal, 
he  was  obliged  to  pay  the  fine  or  deposit  the  amount  thereof. 
His  case  would  then  be  reviewed  by  the  audiencia  and  in  order  to 
effect  this,  notice  of  appeal  had  to  be  submitted  in  sufficient 
time  to  permit  the  record  of  the  entire  case  to  be  reduced 
to  writing.  If,  on  review,  the  audiencia  found  that  the  de 
fendant  was  not  guilty  of  the  charges  which  had  been  brought 
against  him,  the  money  taken  as  a  fine  or  deposit  was  restored. 
If  the  amount  of  the  fine  exceeded  two  hundred  ducats,  or  if 
the  defendant  had  been  convicted  of  serious  crimes,  the  judge 
was  authorized  to  take  the  proper  and  necessary  steps  for  the 
detention  of  the  prisoner  and  the  seizure  of  his  property 
pending  a  new  trial  in  the  higher  tribunal.71'  Cases  involving 
more  than  one  thousand  pesos  could  be  carried  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies. 

A  thoroughly  typical  case,  illustrating  all  of  the  ramifica 
tions  of  a  provincial  official's  residencia,  was  that  of  Francisco 
Fernandez  Zendera,  alcalde  mayor  and  military  captain  of  the 
province  of  Ilocos.80  It  was  investigated  first  by  a  judge  ap 
pointed  by  the  acucrdo,  it  was  reviewed  by  the  audiencia  and 
it  was  finally  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  It  was 
characteristic  in  another  sense,  namely,  in  that  twelve  years 
passed  before  the  matter  was  settled. 

After  Zendera  had  occupied  his  post  three  years,  complaints 
against  him  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  fiscal.  In 
his  capacity  as  prosecuting  official  and  as  protector  of  the  In 
dians,  he  made  a  motion  before  the  audiencia  in  acuerdo,  that 
a  judge  of  residencia  should  be  sent  to  conduct  an  investiga- 


39,  40. 

so  Expcdientc  dc  Don  Frco.  Fernandez  Zendera,  aloald-e  mayor  y 
capitan-  dc  gucrra,  dc  la  provincia  de  Ilocos.  .  .  .  su  residencia  pcn- 
dicnte  dc  informe  dc  la  audiencia,  1794.  A.  I.,  106-5-4  and  5.  The 
papers  relating  to  this  trial  easily  aggregate  4000  pages. 


A  Typical  Case  153 

tion  of  Zendera's  official  conduct.  The  following  charges 
against  Zendera  had  been  sent  to  the  governor,  and  on  the 
basis  of  these,  the  fiscal,  governor,  and  audiencia  decided  to 
conduct  the  investigation :  First,  Zendera  had  compelled  na 
tives  to  work  for  him  on  his  own  estates,  building  houses,  gran 
aries,  fences,  tilling  the  soil  and  planting  crops,  from  two 
hundred  to  three  hundred  men  having  worked  for  him  con 
tinually,  without  pay  or  food;  second,  the  arbitrary  methods 
of  this  alcalde  mayor  left  the  natives  without  money  with 
which  to  buy  their  food  or  to  pay  their  tribute ;  third,  not  only 
were  the  men  forced  to  labor,  but  the  women  were  obliged  to 
sew,  spin  and  embroider  without  pay,  and  the  product  of  their 
labor  wTas  confiscated  by  the  alcalde  mayor. 

The  audiencia  and  the  governor,  in  acuerdo,  having  taken 
note  of  these  charges,  commissioned  Angel  Moguel,  chief  secre 
tary  of  the  government,  to  conduct  the  residencia  of  the 
alcalde.  Moguel  was  put  in  possession  of  the  necessary  docu 
ments  and  departed  at  once  for  Vigan,  the  head  city  of  the 
province.  On  November  7,  1782,  he  posted  notices  to  the  effect 
that  Zendera's  residencia  was  to  be  taken,  calling  011  the  resi 
dents  to  make  formal  charges  against  him.  Moguel  suspended 
Zendera  from  office  and  accepted  20,000  pesos  from  two  of  his 
friends  as  bonds  to  cover  the  residencia,  this  sum  offsetting 
the  valuation  of  the  properties  for  which  Zendera  was  responsi 
ble..  These  were  additional  to  other  bonds  which  Zendera  had 
posted  on  his  accession  to  office. 

For  some  unassigned  reason,  only  twenty-five  days  \vere 
allowed  for  the  filing  of  complaints,  but  during  this  time 
eighty-eight  charges  were  made,  most  of  which  were  variations 
of  those  mentioned  above.  Zendera  was  said  to  have  been  un 
compromising  in  his  administration  of  justice ;  he  had  imposed 
excessive  fines;  he  had  imprisoned  the  natives  without  giving 
them  opportunities  for  defense ;  he  had  refused  to  allow  them 


154       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencies 

to  appeal  their  cases.81  Not  being  a  lawyer,  he  lacked  suffi 
cient  qualifications  for  the  proper  conduct  of  trials;  moreover 
he  had  refused  to  employ  a  t entente  or  asesor.  He  had  failed 
to  supervise  and  enforce  the  instruction  of  Spanish,  and  he  had 
done  nothing  to  assist  in  the  education  of  the  natives.  Zendera 
was  charged  with  having  suppressed  all  commerce  except  his 
own,  going  so  far  as  to  arrest  merchants  of  other  provinces 
who  came  to  Ilocos  to  trade.  This  he  had  done  to  secure  his 
own  monopoly  in  commercial  matters.  He  had,  moreover, 
suppressed  the  trade  of  the  Ilocanos  with  the  Igorrotes.  He 
had  failed  to  segregate  the  men  from  the  women  in  the  pro 
vincial  prison.  It  was  said  that  he  had  neglected  to  publish 
the  governor's  edicts  (bandos)  from  Manila.  He  had  shown 
partiality  to  Spanish  priests  in  preference  to  the  native  clergy. 
He  was  charged  with  having  taken  rice  as  tribute  at  a  low 
price,  turning  it  over  to  the  treasury  officials  at  a  higher  rate, 
th'ereby  making  great  profits  for  himself. 

Zendera  wyas  found  guilty  of  almost  every  charge  made 
against  him.  The  sentence  of  residencia  was  pronounced  by 
the  judge  commissioned  for  the  purpose  on  August  13,  1782. 
The  defendant  was  fined  8000  pesos  and  sentenced  to  depriva- 


si  It  was  said  that  he  had  shown  favoritism  in  his  dealings  with  some 
of  the  t>arangay  (district)  chiefs,  allowing  them  unbridled  license  in  the 
collection  of  tribute  and  in  the  enforcement  of  compulsory  labor,  most 
of  which  they  utilized  for  their  own,  or  for  his,  benefit.  One  chief  was 
said  to  have  gone  so  far  as  to  forcibly  take  carabaos  from  the  natives 
when  the  latter  were  working  them  in  the  fields.  Zendera  had,  of 
course,  extended  favors  to  these  barangay  chiefs  in  exchange  for 
reciprocal  advantages.  (The  alcaldes  may-ores  ruled  the  native  popu 
lation  through  these  chiefs  at  this  time.  Later  they  utilized  the 
gobernadorciUos,  who  were  native  or  mestizo  governors  of  the  small 
towns. — See  Malcolm,  The  government  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  64-72.) 

It  was  also  charged  that  he  had  allowed  cock-fights  whenever  re 
quested,  instead  of  restricting  these  to  holidays  and  Sundays  as  the 
law  prescribed.  On  these  occasions  he  collected  two  reales  from  each 
entrant,  and  in  addition  he  took  the  slain  birds,  alleging  that  they 
were  for  the  consumption  of  the  inmates  of  the  provincial  prison. 
Testimony  was  produced  to  show  that  the  prisoners  had  never  eaten 
fowl. 


The  Reform  of  1799  155 

tion  of  office  for  a  period  of  eight  years.82  The  audiencia, 
in  turn,  reviewed  the  case,  and  that  tribunal,  on  May  20,  1783, 
finding  the  autos  of  the  case  incomplete,  ordered  Moguel  back 
to  Vigan  for  a  second  time  to  complete  the  investigation.  The 
judgment  of  residencia  after  this  second  investigation  was 
made  was  the  same  as  before,  and  the  case  was  carried  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  on  November  7,  1785.  It  seems  that  in 
this  case  the  audiencia  was  somewhat  slow  in  granting  the  ap 
peal,  for  on  February  19,  1788,  a  cedilla  was  expedited  which 
ordered  the  audiencia  to  forward  all  the  autos  in  its  posses 
sion  bearing  on  the  case.  The  final  judgment  of  the  Council 
of  the  Indies  was  rendered  March  23,  1794.  The  fine  of  8000 
pesos  was  reduced-  to  3000  pesos,  and  the  portion  of  the  sen 
tence  which  had  ordered  a  deprivation  of  office  was  remitted 
altogether.83 

The  cedula  of  August  24,  1799,  already  referred  to,  greatly 
altered  the  applicability  of  the  residencias  to  provincial  as  well 
as  insular  officials.  Its  greatest  importance  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  authorized  investigations  of  corrcgidores,  alcaldes 
may  ores,  and  sub-delegate  intendants  only  when  charges  were 
made  against  them ;  otherwise  it  was  assumed  that  their  offi 
cial  conduct  had  been  satisfactory,  and  accordingly  no  resi 
dencias  were  held.  Before  the  officials  could  be  transferred  to 


82  In  taking  the   residencias  of  corregidorcs   and  alcaldes   may  ores 
the    audiencia  frequently    took    great    responsibility    upon    itself.      On 
July    10,    1800,    on    taking   the    residencia    of    Luis    Rodriguez    Varela, 
alcalde  mayor  of  Pangasinan,  the  audiencia  suspended  the  decoration 
of  the  peqwena  cruz,  which   had  been  conferred  upon  this  official  by 
the    royal    authority.      The    deprivation,    in    this    case,    was    tentative, 
pending   the   investigation   of  the   charges   which    had    been   made    of 
shortages  in  the  finances  of  his  province. — Audiencia  to  the  King,  July 
10,  1800,  A.  I.,  106-4-18. 

83  The  original  sentence  probably  denied   to  Zendera  the  privilege 
of  holding  the  office  of  alcalde  may  or  only,  since  he  occupied  the  post 
of  regidor  of  the  city  of  Manila,  pending  the  appeal  of  his  case  to  the 
Council    of    the    Indies.      It    is    evident,    therefore,    that    the    sentence 
which  was  pronounced  upon  Zendera  did  not  apply  to  all  positions  of 
honor  and  trust. 


156       Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia;  the  Residencia 

other  posts  they  were  obliged  to  show  certificates  of  clearance 
from  former  positions.  The  audiencia  was  given  final  juris 
diction  over  the  residential  of  these  officials,  with  inhibition  of 
appeal.  At  the  same  time  the  tribunal  was  denied  jurisdiction 
in  any  instance  over  the  residencias  of  viceroys,  captains-gen 
eral,  presidents,  governors,  treasury  officials,  oidores,  and  in- 
tendants.84  After  the  suppression  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
on  March  24,  1834,  the  latter  cases  were  finished  in  the 
Supreme  Tribunal  of  Justice,  and  that  tribunal  continued  to 
exercise  this  jurisdiction  till  the  close  of  the  nineteenth 
century.83 

The  ccdula  above  referred  to  abolished  the  residencias  of 
tenientes  letrados,  alcaldes  ordinarios,  regidores,  clerks,  pro 
curators,  syndics,  alguaciles,  and  other  minor  officials.  In  place 
of  the  formal  investigation  and  judgment  after  the  term  of 
office  was  completed,  the  audiencia  was  given  more  complete 
control  over  their  official  acts,  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  jus 
tice  was  administered,  jails  inspected  and  kept  clean,  prisoners 


si  Cedilla,  of  August  24,  1799,  Rccopilacion,  5-15,  notes  4  and  5;  see 
also  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation  ultramarina,  I,  282. 

S3  Escriche,  Diccianario.  I,  578;  see  also  royal  order  of  November  20, 
1841,  and  of  January  18,  1848,  in  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation  ul 
tramarina,  I,  282;  290.  When  the  Intendancy  was  established  in  1784-7, 
an  effort  was  made  by  the  newly  created  officials  to  escape  the  residentia. 
The  entire  term  of  the  first  intendant,  Carvajal  (or  Carbajal),  had 
been  devoted  to  an  assertion  of  his  independence  of  the  governor  and 
audiencia.  Carvajal  interpreted  the  law  requiring  all  officials  of  the 
government  to  give  residencia  every  five  years  to  the  Department  of 
Justice  as  not  applying  to  him  or  his  subordinates.  He  pointed  to  the 
stipulation  in  the  ordinance  which  created  his  department,  and  estab 
lished  its  independence  of  the  executive  and  judiciary.  The  king  dis 
approved  of  his  attitude  and  ordered  that  henceforth  the  officials  of 
real  hacienda  should  give  residencia  in  the  same  manner  as  other 
officials,  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  Indies.  (King  to  Carvajal, 
July  29,  1788,  A.  I.,  107-5-19,  citing  Recopilacii'm,  2-15-69;  5-15-15  and 
Ordenanza  de  Intendcntes  de  Buenos  Ayres,  Art.  305.)  This  decree 
ordered  that  the  residencias  of  the  intendants  and  their  assistants 
should  be  submitted  to  the  audiencia.  The  cedilla  of  August  24,  1799, 
so  frequently  cited  in  this  chapter,  gave  final  jurisdiction  to  the 
audiencia  over  the  residencias  of  intendentes-corregidores,  but  it  de 
creed  that  superintendents  should  give  residencia  directly  to  the  Coun 
cil  of  the  Indies. 


Later  Reforms  157 

given  a  speedy  trial  and  not  molested  with  undue  exactions, 
and  the  police  supervised.  The  tribunal  was  also  empowered 
to  see  that  the  ayuntamientos  conducted  their  elections  im 
partially  and  that  the  municipal  officials  executed  their  duties 
faithfully.  In  this  way  the  formal  investigation  at  the  close 
of  the  term  of  these  minor  officials  was  replaced  by  a  more 
efficient  supervision  of  their  acts  by  the  audiencia.  The  constitu 
tional  reforms  of  the  early  nineteenth  century  gave  to  the  audien 
cia  original  jurisdiction  over  the  trial  of  judges  of  first  instance, 
with  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Tribunal  of  Justice.  This  authority 
was  suppressed  in  1815,  and  continued  so  until  1835,  when  it 
was  restored  to  the  audiencias  of  the  colonies. 

Although  the  reform  of  August  24,  1799,  recognized  the 
residencias  of  alcaldes  mayores,  tenientes,  and  corregidores, 
merely  transferring  jurisdiction  over  these  to  the  audiencias, 
it  would  seem  that  this  investigation  retained  less  of  its  former 
severity  from  this  time  onwards.  In  fact,  some  authorities 
infer  that  the  residencia  was  abolished  after  1799. 86  This  was 
not  the  case,  however,  as  the  residencia  was  recognized  by  laws 
promulgated  as  lately  as  1870. S7 


^e  Martinez  Alcubilla  (Diccionario,  XI,  477)  and  Escriche  (Diccion- 
ario,  II,  819)  state  that  the  cf'dula  of  August  24,  1799,  abolished  the 
residencia.  The  latter  states  that  the  residencia  was  eliminated  be 
cause  of  the  corruption  of  judges,  and  as  the  judges  of  residencia  had 
proved  to  be  a  grave  infliction  on  the  towns,  mistreating  witnesses  and 
defendants  on  many  occasions,  it  was  thought  advisable  to  discontinue 
the  practice  of  holding  these  investigations.  Escriche  also  quotes  ex 
tracts  from  the  laws  of  August  24,  1799,  September  26,  1835,  and  No 
vember  20,  1841,  wherein  were  provided  regulations  for  the  future  con 
tinuance  of  the  residencia.  Cases  involving  viceroys,  captains-general, 
and  presidents  of  audiencias  were  to  be  tried  in  the  Supreme  Tribunal 
of  Justice  in  first  instance.  Alcaldes  mayores,  corregidores.  military 
and  political  governors  who  were  not  presidents  were  to  be  tried  in 
the  audiencias  which  exercised  jurisdiction  over  their  districts. 

«7  See  Ccdula  of  July  7,  1860,  in  Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation 
ultramarina,  III,  287;  royal  order  of  July  25,  1865,  ibid..  X,  99;  royal 
order  of  October  25,  1870,  Coleccwn  legislatira,  CV,  442-465. 

The  eminent  authority,  Manuel  Bernaldez  Pizarro,  writing  from 
Manila  on  April  26,  1827,  deplored  the  laxity  which  was  characteristic 
of  the  method  of  conducting  trials  of  residencia,  and  recommended 


158      Judicial  Functions  of  Audiencia-;  the  Besidencia 

The  audiencia  also  had  jurisdiction  over  the  residencies  of 
galleon  officials.  These  had  to  submit  to  res-idencia  at  the 
termination  of  each  voyage.  An  oidor  was  designated  by  the 
governor  for  the  inspection  of  the  ship,  for  the  examination  of 
its  papers,  for  the  consideration  of  complaints  against  the 
officers  of  ill-treatment  of  passengers  and  crews  during  the 
voyage.88  An  investigation  was  conducted  on  the  occasion  of 
the  loss  of  a  ship.  Then  a  thorough  inquiry  was  made  in  an 
endeavor  to  discover  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  admiral, 
general,  or  other  officials.  The  exercise  of  a  similar  authority 
over  cases  involving  the  loss  of  galleons  has  been  discussed  in 
the  preceding  chapter. 

In  pursuance  of  this  authority,  Magistrate  Torralba  was 
commissioned  in  1710  to  take  the  residential  of  the  officers  of 
the  galleon  "Nuestra  Senora  del  Rosario  y  San  Vicente  Fer 
rer",  which  was  wrecked  in  the  Straits  of  San  Bernardino  on 
the  voyage  from  Acapulco  in  1709. 89  As  great  diligence  had 
been  shown  by  them  in  landing  the  treasure  and  sending  it  over 
land,  the  matter  was  dropped.  A  similar  investigation  was 
conducted  in  1743  in  the  case  of  the  galleon  "Cobadonga", 
which  was  captured  by  the  British.  The  charge  was  made  that 
neither  the  "Cobadonga"  nor  her  convoy,  "El  Pilar",  had 
offered  any  resistance,  and  that  the  latter  had  deserted  the 


that  they  be  made  more  effective  and  just.  He  criticized  especially 
the  prevailing  system  of  holding  the  alcaldes  mayores  to  a  strict 
accountability;  who,  he  wrote,  "as  they  have  permission  to  trade,  are 
more  tempted  to  evade  or  infringe  the  laws;  and  many  persons  are 
appointed  to  that  office  'who  lack  all  the  qualifications  necessary  for 
any  public  office  whatever.'  .  .  .  not  only  have  they  used  their  au 
thority  to  possess  themselves  of  the  property. of  the  Indians  .  .  .  and 
defrauded  the  Indians  with  unjust  exactions;  but  they  have  humiliated 
the  religious,  stolen  moneys  from  the  king  .  .  .  [and]  have  thrown 
the  provinces  into  a  condition  of  effervescence  and  of  conspiracy 
against  the  government."  (Blair  and  Robertson,  LI,  212,  212-213.) 
Pizarro  recommended  a  more  stringent  rcsidencia  as  a  means  of 
remedying  these  defects. 

ss  Recopilacion,  5-15-17  and  18;    9-45-42. 

ss  Governor  to  Council  of  the  Indies,  January  4,  1710,  A.  I.,  68-4-15. 


Conclusion  159 

galleon  and  had  taken  refuge  in  flight.90  The  officers  were 
arrested  and  thrown  into  prison  on  charges  brought  by  the 
fiscal,  but  they  were  cleared  in  the  investigation  which  proved 
that  the  ships  were  not  in  a  condition  to  fight. 

The  various  laws  and  cases  which  have  been  cited  in  this 
chapter  show  that  the  trial  of  reside ncia  of  captains-general, 
treasury  officials,  oidores,  intendants,  alcaldes  mayores,  and 
alcaldes  ordinarios  was  a  judicial  function  over  which  the 
audiencia  had  a  large  share  of  authority.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
no  res-idencia  was  ever  taken  in  the  Philippines,  after  the  audi 
encia  had  been  established  there,  in  which  that  tribunal  did  not 
exercise  some  degree  of  authority.  As  the  laws  and  regulations 
of  the  residencies  varied  at  different  times,  the  extent  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  in  this  matter  was  not  always  the 
same.  The  audiencia  either  assisted  in  the  examination  of  the 
charges  or  in  the  designation  of  the  judge.  The  magistrate 
selected  was  usually  an  oidor.  Oidores  were  liable  to  designa 
tion  to  conduct  inquiries,  and  the  audiencia,  as  a  tribunal,  tried 
these  cases  in  review.  The  tribunal  exercised  supervision  over 
the  work  of  the  investigating  judge.  The  case  was  either  fin 
ished  in  the  audiencia,  or  reviewed  there  and  appealed  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  through  the  action  of  the  audiencia.  The 
Council  of  the  Indies  was  the  supreme  arbiter  in  all  cases,  prior 
to  1799.  Subsequently  the  Council,  or  the  Supreme  Tribunal 
of  Justice  after  1834,  retained  final  jurisdiction  over  the  resi- 
dencias  of  the  higher  officials  only.  In  the  residencies  of  pro 
vincial  or  local  officials  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  was 
final. 


Concepcion,  XI,  132-234  (Anson's  depredations). 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    SEMI-JUDICIAL    AND    ADMINISTRATIVE 
FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  AUDIENCIA. 

Aside  from  the  activities  which  have  been  described,  the 
magistrates  of  the  audiencia  rendered  important  services  in 
various  administrative  capacities.  From  the  beginning  until  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  oidores  were  assigned  to  special 
commissions  or  judgeships  with  jurisdiction  over  such  miscel 
laneous  secular  and  ecclesiastical  matters  as  did  not  come 
readily  under  any  other  department  or  authority.  In  practi 
cally  all  cases  these  functions  involved  the  oidores  in  their 
individual  capacities  rather  than  as  magistrates  of  a  tribunal 
of  justice.  Though  their  work  was  independent  of  the  audi 
encia,  their  decisions  were  reviewed  in  the  audiencia  in  many 
cases.  In  short,  it  may  be  said  that  when  any  unforeseen  or 
unclassified  matter  came  up  for  solution,  it  was  usually  assigned 
to  a  magistrate  of  the  audiencia. 

The  exercise  of  these  extra  functions  was  especially  charac 
teristic  of  the  history  of  the  audiencia  down  to  1785,  when  the 
reforms  of  the  intendancy  were  introduced  throughout  the 
Spanish  colonial  empire.  These  important  reforms  grouped 
these  administrative  functions  about  a  central  head,  the  super 
intendent,  and  lessened  the  duties  of  the  oidores  in  these  mat 
ters,  confining  the  magistrates  more  particularly  to  judicial 
duties.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  oidores  exercised 
these  extra  functions  practically  till  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  which  period  comprised  the  greater  part  of  the  exist 
ence  of  the  colonial  audiencia. 

The  laws  of  the  Indies  empowered  the  president  of  the 
audiencia  to  designate  oidores  to  serve  on  these  commissions. 


Designation  of  Magistrates  161 

Additional  compensation  and  travelling  expenses  were  given  for 
these  extra  services.1  The  president  was  forbidden  to  send 
magistrates  011  commissions  to  places  outside  the  district  of 
the  audiencia,  which,  of  course,  would  have  been  impossible 
in  the  Philippines.  Appointment  to  some  of  these  commissions 
was  considered  by  the  magistrates  as  highly  desirable.  Fre 
quent  disagreements  arose  over  these  appointments,  and  the 
king  was  obliged  to  issue  pacificatory  cedulas,  from  time  to 
time,  to  allay  the  discord  and  strife  which  arose  over  the 
appointments  to  the  more  lucrative  of  these  places.  The  prin 
ciple  was  laid  down  repeatedly  that  special  commissions  should 
be  assigned  fairly  among  the  ministers,  and  that  in  their  dis 
tribution  only  the  aptitude  of  the  magistrates  for  the  particular 
tasks  should  be  considered.2  The  term  of  service  for  these 
special  posts  was  a  year.  No  change  was  allowed  in  the  in 
cumbency  of  a  particular  commission  unless  on  account  of 
death,  sickness,  or  removal  for  incompetency.  Appointments  to 
these  extra  duties  were  made  in  the  royal  name,  and  appointees 
were  obliged  to  make  reports  to  the  court  on  the  termination 
of  the  commission  held.  Magistrates  were  held  responsible  for 
their  service  in  this  capacity  in  their  residcncias.  In  large 
audiencias  such  as  Mexico,  Lima,  and  Buenos  Ayres  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  many  commissions  of  this  character  were 
served  by  regular  commissioners  who  held  no  other  posts,  but 
in  the  smaller  colonies  such  as  the  Philippines,  Puerto  Rico, 
and  Cuba,  they  were  held  by  oidores  when  the  duties  con 
nected  with  the  commissions  did  not  entail  sufficient  work  to 
occupy  all  the  time  of  the  appointee. 

The  most  important  and  profitable  commissions  were  awarded 
to  the   senior  magistrate   of  the   audiencia.      He   was   charged 


1  Recopikicion,  2-16-40;    see  also  7-1-15. 

2  Law  of  November  10,  1818,  A.  I.,  106-4-19;    see  Real  instruction 
dado,  a  los  regentes  de  las  audiencias,  20  de  Jwnio  de  1776,  in  Rodriguez 
San  Pedro,  Legislation   ultramarine,  VII,  22-28;    Zamora  y  Coronado, 
Apendice.  19-32. 


162  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

permanently  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  all  the  decrees,  fines, 
and  decisions  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  were  executed,  col 
lections  being  made  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  that 
body.  These  included  fines  imposed  in  residencies  and  other 
penalties  exacted  on  different  occasions  by  the  audiencia,  or  by 
the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Among  the  latter  were  confiscations 
of  property  and  fines  for  smuggling,  for  the  illegal  exportation 
of  silver,  and  for  the  evasion  of  the  king's  fifth,3  the  alcabala 
and  the  almojarifazgo.  The  senior  magistrate  was  authorized 
to  retain  as  compensation  three  per  cent  of  the  amount  col 
lected,  and  he  was  ordered  to  give  account  to  the  audiencia 
of  collections  made  by  him  in  accordance  with  the  law.4 
Another  magistrate  was  ascsor  of  the  Santa  Cruzada,  and  it 
was  his  duty  to  give  legal  advice  and  to  act  as  special  attorney 
for  that  department  of  ecclesiastical  activity.5  The  president, 
fiscal,  and  the  senior  oidor  concurred  in  the  acnerdos  which 
treated  of  matters  pertaining  to  real  hacienda?  This  was 
known  as  the  junta  ordinaria.  A  tribunal  of  appeals  above 
the  junta  ordinaria  was  created  later,  and  in  its  activities,  also, 
the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  participated.7  The  audiencia  also 


s  A  tax  on  silver,  gold  and  other  metals  (as  well  as  on  pearls) 
mined  in  the  Indies.  This  tax  was  first  authorized  on  February  5,  1504 
(Rccopilaci('m,  8-10-1).  Philip  II  conceded  a  commutation  of  this  tax 
to  ten  per  cent  in  favor  of  adelantados,  their  successors  and  other 
early  settlers  (ibid.,  4-3-19).  A  draft  of  a  letter  exists  in  A.  I.,  106- 
6-6,  written  about  1585  by  Governor  Sande  of  the  Philippines,  asking 
for  an  extension  of  this  dispensation. — See  Blair  and  Robertson,  IV, 
87,  par.  114  and  note.  On  August  8,  1609,  the  king  inquired  of 
the  Manila  audiencia  whether  the  tax  was  a  fifth  or  a  tenth. — A.  I., 
102-2-1. 

4  Ibid.,  2-16-19  to  22. 

s/ZneL,  23. 

<•>  /&?'(/..  24.  This  junta  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  real  con- 
taduria,  which  was  composed  of  the  oflciales  reales.  See  Martinez  de 
Zufiiga,  Estadifimo,  246. 

7  This  was  the  junta  superior  de  la  real  Jiacienda,  created  for  Manila 
by  the  law  of  July  24,  1784.  It  was  one  of  the  reforms  of  the  in- 
tendancy.  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  these  reforms  became  ef 
fective  until  1787,  though  the  ccdulas  of  July  17  and  24,  1784,  which 
ordered  them,  were  received  in  Manila  on  December  5,  1785.  These 


Miscellaneous  Commissions  163 

heard  judicially  certain  cases  of  appeal  involving-  the  royal 
treasury,  but  magistrates  who  had  participated  in  the  junta 
mentioned  above  were  not  allowed  to  hear  again  the  cases  in 
which  their  previous  vote  had  been  given.  Each  oidor  served 
in  turn  for  the  period  of  six  months  on  the  board  of  auctions.8 
Magistrates  were  appointed  by  the  governor,  yearly,  in  turn,  to 
serve  as  inspectors  of  the  government.  In  this  capacity  they 
were  expected  to  examine  and  report  on  the  administration  of 
justice  and  on  the  work  of  the  audiencia,  the  royal  treasury 
and  the  officials  connected  therewith,  visitors,  provincial  offi 
cials  and  those  of  the  city  of  Manila.  The  inspecting  magis 
trate  was  authorized  to  examine  the  records  of  these  officials 
and  to  use  any  other  legitimate  means  in  performance  of  his 
special  duties.9 

An  oidor  was  designated  by  the  president  to  make  peri 
odical  inspections  in  the  provinces.  This  official  had  to  attend 
to  a  variety  of  matters  while  on  visits  of  inspection.  He  was 
required  to  make  a  census  of  the  towns,  and  inquire  into  the 
prosperity  of  the  inhabitants ;  to  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
town  officials,  and  to  see  whether  the  provincial  governor  or 


ccdulas  ordered  the  formation  of  a  government  locally,  which  would 
conform  to  the  general  principles  of  the  intendancy  and  which  were 
laid  down  in  the  cedulas  referred  to.  These  plans  had  to  be  referred 
to  Spain  on  appeal.  Subsequently  the  Ordinance  of  Intendants  of 
Buenos  Ayres  was  applied  to  the  Philippines. — A.  I.,  107-5-14.  Until 
January  11,  1791,  all  appeals  from  the  junta  superior  were  heard 
in  the  Audiencia  of  Manila.  The  ccdula  of  that  date,  received  in 
Manila  on  June  30,  1793,  ordered  that  such  appeals  should  be  car 
ried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. — A.  I.,  107-5-22.  The  junta  superior 
de  real  hacienda  did  much  toward  relieving  the  audiencia  of  its 
advisory  functions  as  in  matters  of  finance  and  commerce.  Many 
evidences  of  this  may  be  noted  in  the  reports  and  correspondence  of 
the  superintendente  de  real  Jiaeienda  de  Manila. — A.  I.,  107-5-14; 
107-5-15  to  31;  107-6-1  to  31;  107-7-1  to  21.  Priestley  (Jose  de  Galvez, 
338-9)  shows  that  even  after  the  establishment  of  the  intendancy  in 
New  Spain,  the  audiencia  retained  the  administration  of  crown  lands, 
notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  the  new  laws  which  ordered  that  they 
should  be  controlled  by  the  junta  superior.  See  also  ibid.,  302-3. 

s  Recopilacion,  2-16-34. 

9  76  id.,  2-15-169. 


164  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

magistrate  had  been  faithful  in  the  execution  of  his  duties. 
He  was  supposed  to  visit  the  encomiendas  and  note  the  treat 
ment  of  the  Indians  thereon,  to  find  out  whether  the  natives 
were  properly  and  sufficiently  instructed,  or  whether  they  were 
permitted  to  remain  in  idolatry  and  idleness.  He  inspected 
the  churches  and  monasteries,  seeing  that  they  contained  the 
requisite  number  of  religious  and  no  more,  and  noting  whether 
the  natives  under  the  charge  of  the  ecclesiastics  were  well  treated. 
In  the  same  way  he  inspected  the  curacies  of  the  towns.  The 
visiting  oidor  was  especially  required  to  give  careful  attention 
to  the  corregidorcs  and  alcaldes  ma-yores,  inspecting  their 
judicial  and  administrative  activities  and  holding  them  responsi 
ble  for  any  irregularities,  especially  with  regard  to  the  treat 
ment  of  the  Indians.  The  visitor  was  required  to  inspect  inns 
and  taverns,  to  ascertain  whether  they  observed  the  regular 
tariffs,  and  whether  the  drugs  sold  in  the  provinces  were  of 
good  quality.  He  also  inspected  highways  and  bridges.  If 
the  visitor  found  anything  wrong  he  was  authorized  to  take 
immediate  steps,  on  his  own  responsibility,  to  remedy  the  de 
fects,  reporting  any  action  taken  to  the  audiencia  without 
delay.  As  seen  in  the  last  chapter,  the  immediate  consequence 
of  the  visit  was  frequently  the  rcsidencia  of  the  official  in 
spected.  The  visitor  was  provided  with  sufficient  funds  to  defray 
his  expenses,  so  that  he  would  not  be  a  burden  on  the  encomende- 
ros  or  Indians.  The  president  of  the  audiencia  was  forbiddoi 
to  order  visits  to  the  same  province  more  frequently  than  once 
every  three  years,  unless,  after  an  investigation,  such  action  was 
declared  necessary  by  vote  of  the  acuerdo.™ 

The  audiencia  exercised  supervision  over  certain  matters 
of  church  finance.  These  included  tithes,  the  funds  of  tempor 
alities,  and  of  certain  charitable  societies,  and  jurisdiction  over 
the  adjustment  of  estates  and  properties  left  by  deceased  pre- 


i<>  Ibid.,  2-31-1  to  3. 


Church  Finances  165 

lates.  In  connection  with  the  latter  was  the  duty  of  auditing 
the  accounts  of  benefices  which  were  subject  to  the  royal 
patronage  whenever  a  transfer  of  occupants  was  made.  These 
matters,  though  miscellaneous  in  their  character,  and  accord 
ingly  pertinent  here,  may  be  reserved  for  a  subsequent  chap 
ter  which  will  be  dedicated  to  a  discussion  of  the  relations  of 
the  audiencia  and  the  Church. 

An  oidor  in  the  Philippines  served  as  judge  of  medias 
anatas. n  These  taxes  were  levied  upon  the  salaries  of  all  offi 
cials  of  royal  appointment,  except  ecclesiastics,  these  exactions 
varying  in  amount  from  one-half  the  first  year's  income  to  one- 
tenth  of  the  gross  salary  of  each  official.  The  cedula  of  June  2, 
1632, 12  ordered  the  judge-commissioner  of  medias  anatas  to  sur 
render  the  money  which  he  had  collected  to  the  treasury  officials 
who  in  turn  were  to  transmit  it  to  Spain.13  More  definite  in 
formation  as  to  the  nature  of  the  duties  of  the  judge-commis 
sioner  of  these  funds  may  be  gathered  from  the  cedula  of  De 
cember  14,  1776,  by  which  Oidor  Felix  Diaz  Quejada  y  Obrero 
was  appointed  as  commissioner  of  medias  anatas  in  the  Philip 
pines.  This  magistrate  was  authorized  to  retain  four  per  cent 
of  all  that  he  collected.  This  percentage,  the  cedula  stated,  was 
the  same  as  was  paid  to  the  commissioner  of  medias  anatas  of 
New  Spain.  The  cedula  ordered  Quejada  to  collect  this  tax  from 


/..  8-19  (general  subject  of  medias  a-natas).  Holders  of  ec 
clesiastical  benefices  were  subsequently  obliged  to  pay  the  media  anata. 
although  they  were  especially  exempted  by  the  cedula  of  June  2,  1632. 
The  media  anata  (civil  and  ecclesiastical)  was  paid  until  December 
28,  1846,  when  this  tax,  together  with  the  lanza  (a  tax  formerly  paid 
by  the  nobility,  but  subsequently  required  of  all  classes  in  lieu  of  mili 
tary  service)  was  abolished  (Martinez  Alcubilla,  Dicciwiario,  I,  407). 

i-'/&id.,  8-19-1  and  2. 

™  The  cedula  of  July  3,  1664,  reorganized  the  system  of  medias 
anatax,  authorizing  their  division  into  two  separate  allotments,  one 
payable  at  the  court  on  the  appointment  of  the  official  concerned, 
and  the  second  within  or  at  the  end  of  eighteen  months  after  his 
appointment,  at  the  capital  of  the  district  wherein  he  served.  Guar 
antees  had  to  be  given  that  the  second  payment  would  be  made  when 
due,  and  interest  was  charged  at  the  rate  of  eight  per  cent  a  year  on 
the  amount  remaining  to  be  paid  (ibid.,  4). 


166  Semi- Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

all  royal  appointees,  but  not  from  governors  of  towns  or  Indian 
caciques  who  were  elected  yearly,  and  who,  of  course,  were  not 
royal  appointees.  Appeals  from  judgments  of  the  commissioner 
of  mcdias  anatas  were  to  be  entertained  in  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  only,  and  not  in  the  audiencia.14 

It  has  been  pointed  out  already  in  this  chapter  that  the 
effect  of  the  reforms  of  the  intendancy  was  to  limit  the  juris 
diction  of  the  oidores  over  special  commissions.  This  is  espe 
cially  true  of  those  relating  to  finance.  An  illustration  of  this 
is  shown  in  the  disputes  which  occurred  between  the  oidores  and 
the  governor,  over  the  conservatorships  of  betel,15  wine,  tobacco, 
playing-cards,  and  cockpits.  When  these  sources  of  income  de 
veloped  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  their  super 
vision,  as  usual,  had  been  conferred  on  o-idorcs  with  title  of 
asesores  or  jueces-c&nservadores  (judge  conservators).10  This 
was  done  in  disregard  of  the  laws  of  the  Indies,  wherein  was  ex 
pressed  the  desirability  of  conferring  these  assessorships,  if 
possible,  on  properly  qualified  officials,  other  than  mdorcs. 
The  magistrate  holding  a  commission  was  to  attend  to  the 
legal  duties  and  adjudicate  all  suits  in  connection  therewith. 
The  latter  regulation  was  madl  in  order  that  when  the  cases 
were  brought  to  trial  the  magistrate  might  not  be  incapacitated 
by  having  rendered  decisions  in  them  ahead.  The  law  continued 
in  the  following  strain  : 


14  Cedula  of  December  14,  1776,  A.  I.,  105-2-16. 

is  The  extensive  use  of  the  betel-nut  by  the  natives  of  the  Philip 
pines  encouraged  the  Spanish  government  to  monopolize  its  production 
and  sale,  and  a  considerable  revenue  was  derived  from  it.  In  1786 
the  profit  from  the  sale  of  betel  was  16,770  pesos  (Report  of  Intendant, 
January  8,  1788,  A.  I.  107-  5-15),  and  the  next  year  the  sum  collected 
was  15,207  pesos  (Report  of  Intendant,  June  21,  1789,  107-5-18). 
Other  monopolies  during  the  same  period  yielded  as  follows:  Tobacco, 
258,743  pesos;  wine,  73,636  pesos;  cockpits,  8,375  pesos;  tributes, 
174,494  pesos  (Report  of  Intendant,  June  21,  1789). 

™  Juez  conservador  (civil),  a  judge  named  jwr  privitegio  del  ret/. 
with  private  jurisdiction  over  the  civil  affairs  of  some  community  or 
guild,  for  the  protection  of  its  interests  and  estates  or  the  collection 
of  its  rents  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  II,  260). 


The  Royal  Monopolies  167 

when  a  case  so  urgent  and  extraordinary  offers  itself  that  an  oidor 
must  be  appointed,  warning  is  hereby  given  that  .  .  .  the  same 
magistrate  who  tried  the  case  originally  may  not  be  judge.i? 

This  law  conceded  that  o-idores  might  serve  when  other  magis 
trates  were  not  available. 

Governor  Marquina,  superintendent e  subdelcgado  de  real 
hacienda  from  1789  to  1793,  refused  to  permit  oidores  to  serve 
as  asesores  of  the  monopolies  of  betel,  wine,  and  tobacco.  These 
magistrates  claimed,  however,  that  they  were  entitled  to  the 
appointments,  since  they  had  occupied  these  positions  before 
July  26,  1784,  the  date  of  the  creation  of  the  intendancy  in 
the  Philippines.  They  conceded  that  they  had  been  relieved 
of  jurisdiction  over  these  rents  on  that  date,  and  that  the  au 
thority  formerly  exercised  by  them  had  been  assumed  by  the 
intendant.18  By  the  cedula  of  November  23,  1787,  however, 
the  intendancy  had  been  abolished  and  the  government  restored 
to  "the  state  and  condition  which  had  previously  existed."19 
This  would  mean  that  the  oidores  should  again  hold  these 
asesorias,  and  on  the  basis  of  this  reasoning  they  demanded 
that  the  governor  should  return  them. 

The  oidores  did  not  tamely  submit  to  a  deprivation  of  their 
posts  as  asesores  on  the  occasion  of  the  establishment  of  the 
intendancy.  They  complained  to  the  king,  alleging  that  these 
appointments  belonged  to  them  by  their  own  right.  The  king 
inquired  of  Governor  Basco  y  Vargas  why  the  oidores  had  not 
been  designated  for  these  duties.  The  governor  replied  that 
the  supervision  of  the  rents  had  been  assumed  by  the  intendant, 
but  that  their  direction  belonged  at  that  time  to  the  governor 
and  superintendent,  by  virtue  of  the  cedula  of  November  23, 


17  Rccopilacion,  3-3-35. 

i«  Report  on  the  establishment  of  the  Intendancy  in  Manila,  De 
cember  5,  1785,  A.  I.,  107-5-19. 

]»  Testimonio  and  transcript  of  the  royal  cedula  of  November  23, 
1787;  King  to  Marquina,  June  15,  1791,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 


168  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

1787. 20  He  stated  that  the  oidores  had  no  right  of  their  own 
to  these  ascsorias,  since  the  faculty  of  appointing  asesores  had 
been  conferred  on  the  governor  (or  viceroy)  by  the  laws  of  the 
Indies,21  and  in  times  past  governors  had  appointed  lawyers 
who  were  not  oidores.  There  was  therefore  no  obligation  on 
the  part  of  the  governor  to  give  these  places  to  oidores;  in 
deed,  the  laws  of  the  Indies  had  emphasized  the  undesirability 
of  doing  so.22 

Basco  y  Vargas,  in  pursuance  of  this  conception  of  his 
rights  and  duties,  combined  all  of  these  asesorias  under  the 
direction  of  one  office,  placing  them  under  the  orders  of  his 
own  asesor,  leaving  oidores  in  charge  of  each  minor  asesoria, 
except  that  of  tobacco,  which  was  placed  under  the  immediate 
direction  of  the  governor's  asesor.  The  king  approved  this 
action,  giving  the  new  official  a  new  title,  that  of  asesor  de 
todo  lo  directive  y  lo  economico  de  la  superintendencia  sub- 
dele  gad-a  de  la  real  hacienda  de  Filipinos.2*  The  local  au 
thority  appointed  Magistrate  Castillo  y  Negrete  to  this  new 
position  at  once,  but  the  king,  on  the  ground  that  the  law24 
forbade  an  oidor  to  hold  such  an  office,  disapproved  of  the  ap 
pointment  and  gave  the  place  to  Eufino  de  Rivera,  who  had 
formerly  been  auditor  de  guerra  and  asesor  de  gobierno. 

As  soon  as  Governor  Marquina  assumed  office,  he  relieved 
the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  of  all  share  in  the  administra 
tion  of  these  monopolies,  combining  all  these  branches  of  real 
hacienda  under  the  asesor  above  mentioned.  On  August  3,  1791, 


20  The   first    intendant,    Ciriaco    Gonzales    Carvajal,    was    given    the 
title  of  intcndcntc  de  guerra  y  real  hacienda,  by  virtue  of  the  cedillas 
of  July  17   and  24,   1784.     By  the   reform  of  November   23,  1787,   the 
duties  of  his  office  were  united  to  those  of  the  governor,  whose  title, 
under    the    new    arrangement,    was    gobernador    y    capittin    general    y 
superintendent e  de  la  real  hacienda  (A.  I.,  105-3-5  and  107-5-19;   see 
Chapter  IV,  note  55,  of  this  work. 

21  Reco-pilacwn,  3-3-35. 

22  Basco  y  Vargas  to  the  King,  May  9,  1786,  A.  I.,  107-5-19. 

23  Ccdula  of  March  20,  1790,  A.  I.,  107-5-19. 

24  Recopilacion,  3-3-35. 


Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction  169 

the  audiencia  protested  against  the  acts  of  the  governor,  basing 
its  claims  to  a  continuance  of  authority  on  the  cedilla  of  March 
20,  1790,  by  which  the  king  had  authorized  the  oidorcs  to  ad 
minister  all  the  monopolies  except  tobacco. 

On  August  16,  1791,  Governor  Marquina  answered  the  com 
plaint  of  the  audiencia  in  a  memorial  of  his  own,  in  which 
he  set  forth  his  position  in  summarized  form,  giving  a  history 
of  the  entire  contention,  and  defining  his  position  with  preci 
sion  and  clarity.25  He  claimed  that  the  cedillas  which  had  been 
issued  up  to  that  time  had  recognized  the  right  of  the  governor 
to  dispose  of  these  asesorias,  which  did  not  and  never  had  be 
longed  to  the  oidorcs  by  their  own  right.  As  superintendent 
of  real  hacienda,  he  (the  governor)  was  judge-conservator  of 
all  the  asesorias,  and  by  cedilla  of  March  20,  1790,  he  had  been 
authorized  to  control  them  through  his  asesor.  The  latter  offi 
cial  had  also  been  ordered  to  administer  the  rent  of  tobacco 
directly  as  the  agent  of  the  governor  and  to  supervise  the  others 
in  the  governor's  name.  The  oidores  had  been  forbidden  to 
hold  these  positions,  except  under  exceptional  circumstances, 
which,  in  Marquina 's  judgment,  did  not  exist  at  this  time,26 
since  there  was  present  in  the  colony  a  special  asesor  whose 
duty  it  was  to  supervise  these  monopolies.  The  audiencia 
would  have  to  try  certain  cases  on  appeal  as  a  judicial  body, 
and  o-idores  who  had  already  rendered  decisions  as  judge- 
conservators  could  not  justly  render  decisions  when  the  same 
cases  were  appealed.  He  declared  that  he  had  the  approval 
of  the  king  in  his  contention,  and  was  therefore  confident  of 
his  position. 

The  governor's  will  prevailed,  and  the  magistrates  were 
deprived  of  the  commissions  which  they  had  formerly  held; 
these  were  given  over  to  regular  officials  of  real  hacienda.  Con 
tentious  cases,  however,  that  did  not  pertain  exclusively  to 


25  Marquina  to  the  Audiencia,  August  16,  1791,  A.  I.,  107-5-19. 

26  Recopilacion,  3-3-35,  cited  in  notes  21  and  24  of  this  chapter. 


170  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

finance  \vere  tried  on  appeal  in  the  audiencia  and  that  body 
exercised  regular,  but  not  special,  jurisdiction  in  them  there 
after. 

One  of  the  most  important  offices  which  the  oidores  were 
called  on  to  perform  was  that  of  jucz  de  difuntos.  The  duties 
of  this  office  consisted  largely  in  the  administration  of  the 
funds  and  property  of  persons  who  died  intestate,  or  without 
heirs  in  the  colony.  This  work  was  entrusted  to  the  colonial 
audiencia  as  a  body  in  1526,  and  any  judge  therein  might  be 
delegated  from  the  tribunal  for  the  adjustment  of  an  estate. 

The  first  law  providing  for  a  special  administrator  was 
proclaimed  at  Valladolid  on  April  16,  1550.  It  stated  that 
many  of  the  heirs  of  persons  who  died  in  the  colonies  had 
been  defrauded  of  their  rightful  dues  by  the  carelessness,  omis 
sion,  illegal  procedure,  and  usurpation  of  the  ministers  who  had 
diverted  the  property  to  their  own  uses ;  this  condition  of 
affairs  made  reform  imperative.  Viceroys  and  presidents  of 
royal  audiencias,  while  retaining  power  of  removal  for  cause, 
were  commanded  henceforth  to  name,  at  the  beginning  of  each 
year,  an  o-idor  from  the  local  audiencia  to  act  as  jucz  de 
difuntos.-1  This  judge  was  authorized  to  collect,  administer, 
rent,  sell,  and  have  general  supervision  over  the  property  of 
deceased  persons  to  the  same  extent  that  the  audiencia  pre 
viously  had.  The  acts  of  the  judge  were  appealable  to  the 
audiencia  of  the  district  wherein  he  officiated.  On  December 
15,  1609,  a  law  was  proclaimed  by  Philip  III  which  extended 
the  term  of  this  judge  from  one  to  two  years.  The  early  laws 
provided  no  extra  salary  for  the  jucz  de  difuntos.  It  was  pre 
scribed  that  his  decisions  should  be  respected  by  the  audiencia 
and  by  the  other  officials  of  the  government,  the  viceroys  and 
presidents  being  especially  instructed  not  to  allow  any  other 
official  to  usurp  his  functions. 

27  lUd.,  2-32-1. 


Jucces  de  Difuntos  171 

In  case  the  jucz  de  difuntos  should  fail  to  execute  his 
duties,  or  should  exceed  his  powers,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
fiscal  to  bring  the  abuse  to  the  attention  of  the  audiencia,  and 
that  tribunal  was  supposed  to  see  that  the  proper  methods 
were  enforced.  The  jurisdiction  of  this  special  magistrate  was 
to  extend  to  the  settling  of  the  estates  of  intestates,  and  of 
testates  leaving  property  to  persons  in  Spain.  His  authority  was 
valid  over  the  property  of  deceased  officials,  merchants,  and  en- 
comendcros,  and  it  might  be  extended  to  the  cases  of  foreign 
ers.  He  also  assisted  in  the  disposal  of  property  left  by 
clerics.  When  the  latter  died  intestate,  the  proceeds  of  their 
estates  were  added  to  the  fund  known  as  the  bienes  dc  difun 
tos.  No  distinction  was  made  between  property  left  by  them 
and  that  left  by  civil  employees  of  the  government  or  private 
citizens.  If  these  priests  had  made  testaments,  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  jucz  de  difuntos  to  see  that  the  property  reached  the 
donees  without  the  interference  of  the  prelates.28 

As  in  other  cases  noted  in  this  and  in  former  chapters,  so 
in  the  administration  of  the  estates  left  by  intestate  dece 
dents  the  laws  seem  to  have  undergone  considerable  change.  In 
1526,  Charles  V  ordered  that  such  estates  were  to  be  admin 
istered  under  the  supervision  of  the  audiencia.  In  1550,  the 
place  of  special  jmz  de  difuntos  was  created  in  each  audiencia, 
the  post  to  be  filled  by  a  magistrate  designated  by  the  presi 
dent.  In  1653,  Philip  IV  added  to  the  importance  of  the  office 
by  decreeing  that  all  intestate  cases  should  be  administered 
by  a  special  juez  de  difuntos,  irrespective  as  to  whether  the 
heirs  were  in  Spain,  or  at  the  place  where  the  death  took 
place.29  This  law  provided  that  if  children  or  descendants  were 
left  whose  legitimacy  was  unquestioned,  the  heirs  being  in  the 
colony,  or  if  a  will  legally  attested  and  witnessed  were  left, 
the  case  was  to  be  settled  in  the  ordinarv  courts.  If  there 


28  Ibid.,  7  and  note;    8. 
43. 


172  Semi- Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

were  doubt,  however,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  claims  of  per 
sons  representing  themselves  as  descendants,  or  if  there  were 
no  heirs,  the  case  would  then  be  administered  by  the  jucz  de 
difuntos.  Settlements  made  by  the  ordinary  justices  were  not 
reviewed  in  the  royal  audiencia.  The  authority  accorded  them 
frequently  afforded  pretexts  for  their  intervention  in  cases 
which  should  have  been  settled  by  the  juez  de  difuntos,  par 
ticularly  when  heirs  were  left  in  Spain  and  in  other  colonies. 
A  number  of  disagreements  arose  over  this  point,  but  all  doubt 
was  conclusively  settled  by  the  cedilla  of  January  31,  1772, 
which  awarded  such  jurisdiction  to  the  jucz  de  difuntos?0  This 
was  confirmed  by  the  law  of  September  28,  1797.  Foreigners 
residing  outside  the  dominions  were  not  allowed  to  inherit 
property  left  to  them  in  the  colonies,  even  though  they  were 
lineal  descendants.31  Heirs  or  others  claiming  property  left 
by  deceased  persons  must  appear  in  person,  or  have  others 
appear  for  them,  properly  authorized,  and  must  prove  conclu 
sively  their  rights  as  heirs  or  creditors. 

The  cedula  of  September  28,  1797,  was  a  codification  and 
&  reclassification  of  all  previous  laws  on  the  subject  of  this 
jurisdiction.  The  provisions  of  this  law,  briefly  stated,  were  as 
follows:  (1)  These  judges  should  not  under  any  circumstances 
have  jurisdiction  over  property  left  by  will,  or  without  will, 
when  the  heirs  were  present  and  when  there  was  no  question 
of  their  right  to  the  property.  (2)  In  order  that  these  judges 


30  Ibid.,  42,  note  4;  47,  note  7.  These  cases  may  be  noted  in  A.  I., 
68-4-12. 

J>iJ&irf.,  44.  The  cedilla  of  July  16,  1776,  ordered  the  confiscation 
of  property  left  by  foreigners,  forbidding  that  it  should  be  sent  out 
side  of  the  realm  either  by  the  jucz  de  difuntos  or  by  the  testamentary 
executor.  In  accordance  with  this  regulation  the  superintendent,  in 
1800,  seized  the  property  of  a  Spaniard  who  had  married  a  lady  of 
Madras.  The  Spaniard  had  left  a  will  providing  for  the  transfer  of  his 
property  to  his  wife,  naming  an  executor  to  administer  the  will.  This 
was  opposed  by  the  juez  de  difuntos,  but  when  the  case  was  appealed 
the  action  of  the  superintendent  was  approved  (Aguilar  to  Soler,  July  8, 
1800,  A.  I.,  107-5-24). 


Jueccs  de  Difuntos  173 

have  power  of  intervention,  it  must  be  well  known  or  appear 
by  judicial  process  that  either  all  the  heirs  or  the  greater  num 
ber  of  them  were  absent.  (3)  They  were  not  to  have  jurisdic 
tion  over  property  left  by  Indians  or  caciques.  (4)  They 
should  not  usually  have  authority  to  settle  up  the  estates  or 
property  of  native  clerics,  because  their  heirs  would  presumably 
be  present.  These  cases  were  therefore  subject  to  the  juris 
diction  of  the  ordinary  courts,  unless  it  W7ere  shown  that  there 
were  heirs  in  Spain.  Under  no  circumstances  should  the  ecclesi 
astical  authorities  have  intervention  in  these  cases.  (5)  When 
the  heirs  were  present,  the  audiencia  was  ordered  to  enforce 
the  law'  which  forbade  the  intervention  of  both  the  juez  de 
difuntos  and  the  ordinary  judge.32  In  these  cases  the  heirs 
were  allowed  to  assume  their  property  intact,  without  its  be 
ing  sold  and  thereby  costs  incurred.  (6)  The  practice  which 
had  hitherto  been  followed  by  the  juez  de  difuntos  of  divert 
ing  a  fifth  of  the  property  of  those  who  died  intestate  for  the 
repose  of  the  souls  of  the  dead  should  cease  from  that  time 
onward,  and  the  proceeds  of  said  property  should  be  handed 
over  without  deduction  to  the  heirs  and  relatives  of  the  de 
ceased,  in  accordance  with  the  cedilla-  of  June  20,  1766. 1:! 
(7)  The  juez  de  difuntos  was  forbidden  to  intervene  in  the 
settlement  of  estates  or  property  left  to  heirs  by  will.34 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  the  oidor  detailed  as  juez  de 
difuntos  had  jurisdiction  over  cases  of  intestacy,  over  the 
settlement  of  property  when  no  heirs  were  apparent,  or  when 
there  was  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  heirs,  and  in  cases  where 


32  See  Recopilacion,  2-32-42. 

ss  A  case  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  on  June  4.  1806, 
involved  the  property  of  Antonio  Rodriguez  de  la  Peiia,  deceased. 
Rodriguez  had  bequeathed  35,875  reales  to  his  father;  the  Augustin- 
ians  claimed  11,875  reales,  or  one-third  of  the  entire  estate,  for  prayers 
said  in  behalf  of  the  soul  of  the  departed  one.  The  contaduria  general 
in  Madrid  refused  to  allow  payment  (Aparici  to  the  Council  of  the- 
Indies,  June  4,  1806,  A.  I.,  107-3-8). 

34  Recopilaeion,  2-32,  note  7. 


174  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

the  designated  testamentary  donees  were  outside  the  colony. 
The  ordinary  justices  administered  estates  in  two  capacities, 
namely,  when  testaments  were  to  be  executed,  the  heirs  beiKg 
present,  or  when  they  acted  as  agents  for  the  juez  de  difuntos. 
The  latter  was  privileged  to  call  upon  the  corregidores,  alcaldes 
mayores,  and  other  ordinary  justices  to  execute  provisions  in 
the  provinces,  and  these  officials  were  obliged,  when  so  desig 
nated,  to  settle  estates  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  juez™ 

When  the  heirs  were  resident  in  Spain,  or  in  some  colony 
other  than  the  Philippines,  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  were 
sold  and  the  money  was  set  aside  to  be  remitted  to  Spain.  The 
collective  sum  of  these  properties,  sold  and  unsold,  was  desig 
nated  as  the  bienes  de  difuntos.36  At  stated  periods  the  jucz 
de  difuntos  was  required  to  turn  over  the  funds  that  he  had 
collected,  or  received  in  the  execution  of  his  duties,  to  the 
oficiales  reales,  first  deducting  three  per  cent  of  their  gross 
amount  for  his  services.37  His  accounts,  which  were  sent  to 
the  Council  of  the  Indies,  were  also  audited  by  these  offi 
cials,  and  the  audiencia  likewise  held  him  accountable  for 
any  abuses  or  errors  other  than  financial.  He  was  also  held 
responsible  in  his  residencia.  The  fiscal  was  his  prosecutor  in 
case  of  suit.  The  juez  de  difuntos,  on  his  part,  was  authorized 
to  require  reports  from  the  agents  and  administrators  who 
served  him  in  the  provinces,  and  all  necessary  safeguards  were 
taken  for  his  protection.38 

Theoretically,  the  juez  de  difuntos,  acting  through  the 
oficiales  reales,  sent  such  money  as  he  had  collected  to  the 
Casa  de  Contratacion  of  Seville,  or,  after  June  18,  1790,  the 
date  of  the  extinction  of  that  body,  to  the  juez  de  arribadas  in 
Cadiz.30  Thence  it  was  distributed  among  the  heirs  in  various 


35  Hid.    10. 

32-33,   40,   60. 
16,  32,  33. 
16-18,  27-29,  31. 
46,   and  note. 


37 


39 


Bienes  de  Difunios  175 

parts  of  Spain,  or,  in  case  no  heirs  were  found,  it  was  to  re 
main  in  a  fund  by  itself,  until  otherwise  appropriated  or  dis 
posed  of  by  the  crown.  The  money  was  sent  at  the  risk  of  the 
heirs,  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  gross  amount  being  deducted  to 
pay  the  costs  of  transfer.40  In  actual  practice,  however,  the 


*<>Il)id,  48-56,  59. 

The  report  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  of  Pedro  Aparici,  general 
superintendent  of  real  hacienda,  on  July  8,  1805,  shows  in  detail  the 
method  of  settlement  in  Spain.  This  report  was  submitted  to  cover 
the  administration  of  the  property  of  Alberto  Reyes,  who  died  in 
Manila  in  1803.  The  statement  was  as  follows: 

Total  property  left 123,700  r. 

Executor's  commission   741  r.  16  m. 

Administration    1,237  r. 

Expenses    123  r.  18  m. 


Total  deductions    2,102  r. 


Balance  to  be  distributed  among  heirs 121,598  r. 

Two-thirds  left  to  brother  as  per  will 81,066  r. 

One-third  left  to  parents  as  per  will 40,532  r. 

Another  illustration  of  the  disposal  of  money  left  under  slightly 
different  circumstances  may  be  noted  in  the  Royal  Order  of  February 
14,  1800,  to  the  juez  de  arribadas  at  Cadiz.  The  king  ordered  the 
transmission  of  8024  pesos  to  the  royal  treasury  because  of  the  im 
possibility  of  finding  the  heirs  of  Antonio  Manuel  Pereda,  who  died 
at  Manila  in  1767.  By  the  terms  of  his  will,  2000  pesos  had  been 
left  to  the  Third  Order  of  St.  Francis,  200  pesos  to  poor  widows  and 
orphans,  and  the  balance  was  left  to  his  mother.  The  lady  had  died, 
however,  and  as  there  were  no  heirs  apparent,  the  money  was  ordered 
transferred  to  the  royal  treasury  (A.  I.,  107-3-9), 

These  large  sums,  constantly  on  hand,  intact  and  available,  were  al 
ways  a  source  of  grave  temptation  to  governors  and  treasury  officials. 
Loans  were  frequently  taken  from  this  fund  for  ordinary  or  unusual 
expenses  of  the  government.  At  first  the  juez  d-e  difuntos  objected 
forcibly  to  the  governor's  seeming  disregard  of  the  royal  instructions 
regarding  these  funds.  The  laws  of  the  Indies  had  commanded  that 
they  should  be  held  inviolable  (Reoopilacion,  57,  70).  As  noted  above,  the 
practice  had  arisen  of  making  deductions  from  the  subsidy  equivalent 
to  the  amount  of  bicnes  de,  difuntos  produced  in  the  Philippines,  and 
of  retaining  the  money  in  Acapulco.  This  practice  worked  havoc  with 
the  fulfillment  of  the  law  which  had  ordered  that  these  funds  be  pre 
served  intact.  The  governor  and  the  treasury  officials  had  fallen  into 
the  practice  of  appropriating  such  available  funds  as  existed  in  the 
caja  de  difuntos  for  purposes  of  local  administration,  with  the  assur 
ance  that  the  money  would  be  properly  accounted  for  in  Mexico. 
Governor  Anda  seems  to  have  been  a  leading  offender  in  this  matter. 
In  1767  he  borrowed  19,729  pesos  from  the  juez  d<e  difuntos  and  in 
1768  another  sum  of  30,000  pesos  was  taken  (Landazurri  to  the  Council 


176  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

funds  derived  from  the  Philippines  were  retained  at  Manila, 
itemized  accounts  of  them  being  forwarded  to  Acapulco,  the 
proper  amount  being  deducted  there  from  the  annual  subsidy.41 
This  rendered  unnecessary  the  actual  transfer  of  money.  The 
juez  de  difuntos  in  Mexico  received  the  funds  from  the  Philip 
pines,  together  with  reports  and  accounts  relating  thereto,  and 
remitted  them  to  Spain.  There  occurred  many  instances  in 
which  this  magistrate  in  Mexico  found  mistakes  in  the  reports 
rendered  by  his  subordinate  in  Manila.  A  great  deal  of  criti 
cism  was  made  from  time  to  time,  of  alleged  irregularities  in 


of  the  Indies,  May  22,  1770,  A.  I.,  107-3-9).  By  the  ccdula  of  October 
9,  1777,  the  king  approved  the  action  of  Governor  Anda  in  borrowing 
from  these  funds  on  three  other  occasions  to  the  extent  of  25,000, 
14,206,  and  24,477  pesos,  respectively,  for  the  fortification  of  the  city. 
It  was  ordered  that  this  should  not  be  done  again,  however,  except 
under  extraordinary  circumstances  (A.  I.,  107-3-9). 

After  being  permitted  for  a  long  period  of  time,  the  practice  which 
the  Manila  authorities  had  followed  of  making  these  deductions  was 
finally  disapproved  by  the  home  government.  In  1806,  because  of  the 
non-arrival  of  the  galleon  with  the  subsidy,  the  governor  (and  super 
intendent)  authorized  an  advance  of  54,049  pesos  from  the  bienes  de 
difuntos,  which  sum  constituted  the  entire  amount  on  hand.  On 
April  25,  1815,  the  fiscal  of  the  contaduria  general  de  las  Indias  handed 
down  an  adverse  opinion  on  this  action  (A.  I.,  107-3-9).  Although 
the  practice  of  allowing  small  loans  from  the  funds  of  deceased  per 
sons  had  been  practiced  in  the  Philippines  in  case  of  exceptional 
circumstances,  it  was  his  opinion  that  the  whole  proceeding  had  been 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  Indies  (Recopilacion,  2-32-57).  He 
advised  that  in  the  future  there  should  be  no  interference  with  this 
money  until  the  deduction  had  been  authorized  by  the  juez  dc  difuntos 
in  Mexico,  and  the  judge  should  act  only  after  he  had  received  the 
report  of  the  corresponding  official  in  the  Philippines. 

If  the  above  advice  were  followed,  at  least  a  year  would  pass 
before  the  report  of  the  Manila  judge  could  reach  Mexico,  and  be 
returned.  It  was  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  officials  in  the  Philip 
pines  would  wait  for  any  such  formality  when  in  need  of  money 
for  the  current  expenses  of  government.  This  is  another  example 
of  the  cumbrousness  and  lack  of  expedition  of  Spanish  colonial 
administration,  as  affected  by  time  and  distance.  It  will  be  noted, 
also,  that  this  practice  had  been  going  on  since  the  time  of  Anda 
(1768),  and  the  Council  of  the  Indies  did  not  pronounce  against 
it  decisively  until  1815.  The  particular  litigation  which  brought 
about  its  condemnation  arose  in  1806  and  continued  throughout  a 
period  of  nine  years. 

41  Ibid.,  60.  See  the  articles  on  the  Philippine  situado  by  E.  G. 
Bourne  and  James  A.  Leroy  in  the  American  historical  review,  X, 
459-461,  929-932;  XI.  722-723. 


Bienes  de  Dif lottos  177 

the  administration  of  these  funds  in  the  Philippines ;  in  fact, 
successive  royal  cedillas  repeatedly  charged  the  Philippine  offi 
cials  with  maladministration.42  The  general  superintendent  of 
finance,  Aparici,  in  a  report  to  the  Council,  stated  on  July  19, 
1797,  that  these  funds  had  never  been  properly  accounted  for, 
and  that  glaring  defects — even  dishonesty,  had  always  existed.43 
These  faults,  he  alleged,  were  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  funds 
were  not  directly  administered,  but  were  paid  into  the  treasury 
of  Mexico,  and  that  because  of  this  roundabout  method  direct 
control  could  not  be  exercised.  Although  this  high  official 
pointed  out  these  defects  and  made  recommendations  for  the 
betterment  of  the  service,  no  change  was  made,  and  the  funds 
continued  to  be  remitted  to  Mexico  until  1815,  when  the  sus 
pension  of  the  regular  galleon  eliminated  the  possibility  of  this 
practice.44 

The  juez  de  difuntos  was  frequently  opposed  in  the  exercise 
of  his  special  jurisdiction  by  other  officials  of  the  colony. 
Many  cases  involving  these  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  were  ap 
pealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Among  the  most  frequent 
were  the  quarrels  which  took  place  between  the  captain-general 


42  Cedulas   of   November    26,    1776,    September   9,    1778,    October    13, 
1780,  June  12,  1783,  February  17,  1786,  A.  I.,  107-3-9. 

43  Aparici  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  July  19,  1797,  A.  I.,  107-3-9. 
An  examination  of  a  few  typical  accounts  of  this  department  will 

show  that  the  sums  involved  were  always  considerable.  On  June  6, 
1767,  the  juez  de  difuntos  in  Manila  had  45,563  pesos  on  hand;  on 
June  17,  1781,  31,009  pesos;  on  June  29,  1783,  27,636  pesos;  on  July 
28,  1801,  40,827  pesos  (see  reports  of  various  jueces  de  difwntos, 
A.  I.  107-3-9).  The  total  receipts  of  the  office  of  juez  de  difuntos  in 
Manila  for  the  year  terminating  January  25,  1819,  were  10,750  pesos. 
Payments  against  the  fund  that  year  were  27,747  pesos,  which  were 
made  possible  by  a  balance  on  hand  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  of 
52,900  pesos  (Report  of  Vicente  de  Posadas,  Juez  de  Difuntos  de, 
Manila,  January  25,  1819,  A.  I.,  107-3-9).  On  March  31,  1828,  the 
funds  of  this  department  amounted  to  32,657  pesos  (A.  I.,  107-3-9). 

44  The  last  state  galleon   left  Manila  for  Mexico   in   1811,  and  the 
last  ship  sailed  from  Acapulco  to  Manila  in  1815  (Foreman,  Philippine 
Islands.    243;    and   Montero   y   Vidal,   Historia   general.    II,   413,  note. 
The  galleon  service  was  suppressed  by  decree  of  the  Cortes,  September 
14,  1813.— Ibid,  412. 


178  Semi- Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

and  the  juez  de  difuntos  over  the  question  of  the  special  mili 
tary  jurisdiction  of  the  latter,  and  the  claim  of  the  juez  de 
difuntos  to  administer  the  property  of  military  and  galleon 
officials.  For  example,  011  July  6,  1757,  the  juez  appealed  to  the 
Council  for  jurisdiction  over  the  property  of  a  deceased  galleon 
official  011  the  basis  of  the  rights  conceded  to  him  by  the  laws  of 
the  Indies;45  the  governor  claimed  the  right  to  administer  this 
property  on  the  ground  that  the  galleon  officials  were  ap 
pointed  by  him,  and  that  they  were  held  by  the  laws  of  the  In 
dies  to  be  under  the  military  jurisdiction.  This  case  was  de 
cided  in  favor  of  the  juez  de  difuntos,  and  may  be  considered 
as  having  established  a  precedent  for  his  subsequent  jurisdic 
tion  over  such  cases.46 

Probably  the  most  notable  case  of  conflict  between  the  civil 
and  military  jurisdictions  and  one  which  involved  the  juez  de 
difuntos  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  lieutenant- 
governor  and  king's  lieutenant,  Pedro  Sarrio.  The  latter  had 
left  his  property  by  will  to  his  brother,  the  Marques  de  Al- 
gorja,  a  resident  of  Alicante.  He  had  appointed  a  resident  of 
Manila  as  executor.  The  governor  claimed  that  the  right  to 
administer  the  property  belonged  to  the  executor.  The  juez  de 
difuntos,  on  the  ground  that  Sarrio  had  left  heirs  in  Spain, 
contended  that  the  funds  should  be  administered  by  him,  as 
the  executor  did  not  have  authority  to  transmit  the  property 
to  Spain.  This  case  was  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies; 
no  record  appears  of  its  ultimate  solution,  but  it  is  illustrative 
of  the  commonly  accepted  principle  that  the  juez  de  difuntos 
should  have  authority  over  the  administration  of  all  prop 
erty  which  had  to  be  transmitted  to  Spain  for  distribution 


45  Recopilacion,   2-32-7. 

4s  Villacorta  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  July  6,  1757,  A.  I., 
106-4-15.  The  evidence  of  this  case  also  exists  in  A.  I.,  107-3-9,  and 
is  cited  in  connection  with  a  later  dispute  of  the  same  character. 


Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction  179 

among  heirs.47  The  governor's  contention  against  it  was  based 
on  the  fact  that  Sarrio  was  a  military  official.  As  we  have  al 
ready  seen,  the  law  of  August  29,  1798,  authorized  the  settle 
ment  of  the  property  of  soldiers  by  special  military  courts.48 

Other  sources  of  frequent  dispute  were  the  respective 
claims  of  the  ju-ez  de  difuntos  and  the  oficiales  reales  for  juris 
diction  over  property  left  by  persons  who  were  indebted  to 
the  royal  treasury  at  the  time  of  their  death.  On  the  occasion 
of  the  death  of  the  corregidores  of  Tondo  and  Ilocos,  in  1776  and 
1778,  respectively,  without  having  made  wills,  the  oficiales  reales 
took  steps  to  make  an  immediate  seizure  of  the  property  of  the 
deceased  officials.  They  demanded  that  all  documents  and  papers 
pertaining  to  the  cases  should  be  surrendered  at  once  into  their 
hands  in. order  that  the  amount  owing  to  the  government  might 
be  collected.  Governor  Basco  y  Vargas  interposed  on  the  ground 
that  since  these  officials  had  died  intestate,  the  settlement  of 
their  property  should  be  effected  by  the  juez  de  difuntos;  it 
being  incumbent  upon  the  oficiales  reales  to  present  the  claims 
to  the  judge.49 

Shortly  after  this  decision  had  been  rendered,  the  alcalde 
mayor  of  Tayabas  died,  leaving  a  deficit  of  7000  pesos,  and  the 
officials  of  the  royal  treasury  immediately  brought  suit  in  the 
audiencia  on  the  basis  of  the  laws  of  the  Indies  for  jurisdic 
tion  in  the  case  prior  to  that  of  the  juez  de  difuntos.  They 
alleged  that  the  law  provided  that  the  treasury  officials  should 
have  precedence  in  collections,  and  that  debts  due  to  the  real 
hacienda,  should  be  settled  prior  to  all  others.  Moreover,  they 
claimed  that  all  officials  should  assist  them  in  making  these 
collections  and  that  no  restrictions  should  be  placed  upon  their 
activities.  Further  evidence  in  support  of  the  contentions  of 


47  Marquina    to    the    Council    of   the    Indies,    June    18,    1790,    A.    I., 
107-5-18. 

48  Rccopilacion,  2-32,  note  2. 

•io/btd.,  5-12-14.     Basco  y  Vargas  to  the  King,  June  6,  1778,  A.  I., 
105-2-9. 


180  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

the  treasury  officials  was  submitted  in  the  substance  of  the 
royal  cedula  of  April  23,  1770,  which  declared  that  these 
judges  should  be  entrusted  exclusively  with  the  collection  of 
royal  funds.  "Furthermore,"  the  cedula  stated,  "if  any  case 
shall  arise  which  pertains  to  finance  and  at  the  same  time  to 
the  juez  de  difuntos,  the  latter  may  not  make  the  advocation, 
because,  however  favorable  may  be  his  jurisdiction,  that  of  the 
royal  treasury  is  more  favorable."50  The  oficiales  reales  in 
sisted  that  they  should  not  be  required  to  go  before  the  juez 
de  difuntos  for  any  purpose,  since  the  laws  of  the  Indies"1 
gave  them  the  power  of  inspecting  the  accounts  of  the  jucz  de 
difuntos  and  of  keeping  and  administering  these  funds.32  The 
more  recent  cedula  of  October  13,  1780,  had  decreed  that  the 
accounts  of  the  juez  de  difuntos  should  be  approved  by  the 
treasury  officials,  and  on  this  basis  they  were  able  to  advance 
claims  to  seniority. 

This  dispute,  though  brought  for  adjudication  before  the 
audiencia,  was  not  settled  by  the  tribunal.  The  evidence  per 
taining  to  the  case  was  collected  and  referred  to  the  Council 
on  December  22,  1786.  The  cedula  which  finally  disposed  of 
the  matter  was  issued  May  4,  1794,  in  the  following  terms : 

It  is  indisputable  that  the  ministers  of  our  real  hacienda  are 
authorized  to  have  jurisdiction  over  all  debtors  of  my  royal  treasury 
.  .  .  with  preference  to  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  juez  de 
difuntos,  or  to  the  judge  commissioned  to  settle  property  of  intestates 
or  to  pay  creditors;  .  .  .  the  accounts  of  my  real  hacienda  shall  be 
settled  by  my  royal  judges  before  the  juez  de  difuntos  may  have 
cognizance.53 

By  this  decree  it  wras  definitely  established  that  the  treasury 
officials  should  have  precedence  over  the  regular  judges  in  the 
settlements  of  estates  of  officials  and  individuals  against  whom 


no  Cedulas  of   April   23,   1770,    October   13,   1780,    and    May    4,    1794, 
A.   I.,   105-2-10. 

si  Recopilacion,  2-32-28. 

™IUd.,  law  25. 

ss  Cedula  of  May   4,   1794,   A.   I.,   105-2-10. 


The  Settlement  of  Appeals  181 

the  royal  treasury  had  claims.  After  the  demands  of  the  gov 
ernment  were  paid,  those  of  private  individuals  might  be  set 
tled,  and  it  was  ordered  that  the  juez  de  difuntos,  as  the  cham 
pion  of  individual  claims,  should  always  give  precedence  to 
the  oficiales  reales  who  represented  the  interests  of  the  gov 
ernment. 

The  organization  for  the  administration  of  these  funds  pre 
sented  a  complete  hierarchy.  The  actions  of  the  juez  de 
difuntos  were  subject  to  review  by  the  Audiencia  of  Manila. 
The  funds  from  the  Philippines  were  deducted  from  the  sub 
sidy  at  Acapulco,  and  forwarded  to  the  Casa  de  C  out  rat  ado  n 
of  Seville  (or  the  juez  de  arribadas  at  Cadiz,  after  1790)  by 
the  juez  de  difuntos  of  Mexico.  The  heirs  in  Spain  were  then 
found,  and  the  money  transferred  to  them,  less  discounts  cov 
ering  costs  of  transmission  to  Spain.  In  case  appeals  were 
made  from  the  decision  or  settlement  of  the  juez  de  difuntos, 
the  records  of  his  proceedings  in  the  case  under  consideration 
were  reviewed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  method  of 
procedure  there  was  to  refer  these  documents  and  accounts  to 
the  Contaduria  General,  where  all  accounts  for  the  Council 
were  audited  and  settled,  and  the  recommendations  of  that 
tribunal  were  accepted.  The  constitutional  reforms  of  the 
nineteenth  century  gave  the  audiencia  increased  authority  in 
the  final  settlement  of  these  matters,  and  its  decision  was  made 
final  in  practically  all  contentious  cases,  though,  of  course, 
final  judgments  involving  heirs  who  were  resident  in  Spain 
might  still  be  appealed  by  them  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  or 
the  Supreme  Tribunal  of  Justice. 

Aside  from  the  activities  of  the  magistrates  as  members  of 
the  juntas  de  hacienda,  described  earlier  in  this  chapter,  it 
would  perhaps  be  safe  to  assert  that  the  tribunal  exercised 
general  supervision  over  financial  affairs  in  the  colony  until 
the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  intendancy  (1785-87). 
Correspondence  between  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and  the 


182  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

Audieneia  of  Manila  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  magis 
trates  were  expected  to  transmit,  and  did  send,  in  fact,  reports  on 
colonial  finances  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Among  the  re 
ports  of  the  aidores  about  twenty  of  these  periodical  state 
ments  have  been  found,  covering  irregularly  the  period  from 
1609  to  1780.  No  doubt  a  complete  set  exists.  These  generally 
embody  a  detailed  audit  of  the  accounts  of  the  oficiales  reales. 
Numerous  commissions  were  also  sent  to  the  audiencia  from 
time  to  time,  ordering  the  magistrates  to  give  special  attention 
to  financial  affairs,  such  as  the  collection  of  licenses  from 
Chinese ;  to  see  that  tithes  were  efficiently  collected  and  re 
ported,,  to  see  that  the  tax  on  metals  (mined)  was  paid,  and 
offering  special  rewards  in  case  of  apprehension.  It  has  al 
ready  been  shown  that  the  king  on  August  8,  1609,  asked  the 
audiencia  whether  the  king's  fifth  had  been  commuted  to  a 
tenth  in  the  Philippines.  On  July  21,  1756,  the  audiencia 
reported  on  the  number  of  ships  that  had  entered  the  harbor 
of  Manila  during  the  year  before.  On  May  4,  1760,  Francisco 
Leandro  de  Viana,  the  fiscal,  charged  the  merchants  of  Manila 
with  wholesale  fraud  in  the  payment  of  the  almojarifaz.go, 
paying  only  3%  when  the  law  of  1714,  then  in  force,  had  or 
dered  the  payment  of  8%.  Viana 's  report  charged  the  oidorcs 
with  responsibility  for  this  deliberate  violation  of  the  law, 
alleging  that  the  aidores  had  been  profiting  thereby.  It  was 
on  this  occasion  that  the  fiscal  recommended  the  establishment 
of  a  consulad-o  at  Manila,  which  would  remove  from  the  magis 
trates  of  the  audiencia  all  temptation  to  use  their  positions  for 
private  profit  in  violation  of  the  commercial  laws  of  the  realm.54 
The  part  played  by  the  magistrates  in  the  administration  of 
the  trade  with  Acapulco  may  also  be  mentioned  here.  This  will 
be  discussed  in  a  subsequent  chapter.55 


s*  A.    I.,    106-4-17;    108-3-17;    105-2-10    to    32.      See    Bibliography 
under  "Manuscripts  used." 

55  The  author  has  at  his  disposal  abundant  data  for  each  subject 


Miscellaneous  Duties  183 

Apart  from  the  extra  duties  and  commissions  already  noted, 
the  audiencia  was  utilized  for  a  variety  of  purposes  which  are 
too  miscellaneous  to  be  classified,  but  too  important  to  be 
omitted  from  this  discussion.  Duplicates  of  executive  orders 
relating  to  subjects  far  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
audiencia  as  a  court,  were  sent  to  it,  with  instructions  that 
the  tribunal  take  note  of  numerous  matters,  such  as  seeing 
that  the  laws  were  properly  executed,  observing  the  effect  of 
reforms,  and  reporting  on  their  availability  and  adaptability 
at  various  times  and  places.  Copies  of  new  laws  relating  to 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  were  sent  to  the  audiencia  for 
its  information. 

The  above  practices  were  never  more  prominently  evident 
than  during  the  constitutional  reforms  from  1810  to  1823. ~)G 
That  period,  of  course,  was  a  time  of  change  and  stress,  and 
the  audiencia  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  the  one  stable 
authority  in  the  Philippines.  Cedula-s  and  executive  orders 
were  issued  to  the  audiencia  without  regard  to  the  department 
of  government  to  which  they  applied.  By  the  cedula  of  June 
14,  1811,  the  audiencia  was  made  responsible  for  the  execution 
of  all  the  orders  of  the  superior  government.  On  March  18, 
1812,  oaths  of  all  civil  and  judicial  officials  were  ordered  to  be 
administered  by  the  audiencia.  A  royal  order  was  received  by 
the  Audiencia  of  Manila  on  January  19,  1813,  which  forbade 
the  existence  of  free-masonry  in  the  Islands.  The  audiencia 
was  made  responsible  for  the  execution  of  all  these  ccdulas 
and  decrees.  On  August  6,  1813,  the  tribunal  acknowledged 


covering  each  decade  and  century,  showing  that  the  powers  mentioned 
were  characteristic  throughout.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  reader  will 
appreciate  the  impossibility  of  giving  more  than  a  few  citations  for 
each  case,  not  because  they  are  not  available,  but  because  there  is  not 
room  for  them.  It  was  the  writer's  original  plan  to  write  two  addi 
tional  chapters,  one  on  the  commercial  duties  of  the  audiencia,  and 
another  on  the  financial  powers.  Because  of  a  lack  of  space  these 
chapters  have  been  omitted. 
se  A.  I.,  106-4-18. 


184  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

receipt  of  the  law  of  April  25,  1810,  which  forbade  foreigners 
to  land  in  the  Islands  without  passports.  The  audieiicia  was 
again  made  responsible  for  the  execution  of  the  reforms  of 
1812,  1815,  1823,  1834,  and  1835,  by  which  the  entire  adminis 
trative  and  judicial  systems  of  the  colony  were  reorganized. 

The  conduct  of  officials  was  continually  under  the  observa 
tion  of  the  oidores,  and  special  reports  were  frequently  sent  to 
the  Council  from  the  audiencia  in  review  of  the  progress  of 
the  government  in  general,  or  in  elucidation  of  some  special 
phase  of  it,55  A  few  more  examples  of  these  investigations 
which  were  charged  upon  the  oidores  may  be  reviewed  here, 
together  with  the  reports  made  by  the  magistrates  in  compli 
ance  with  royal  instructions. 

The  king,  on  August  9,  1609,  wrote  to  the  audiencia,  asking 
for  information  concerning  the  truth  of  a  certain  report  which 
had  come  to  him,  regarding  a  custom  practiced  among  the 
natives  before  the  arrival  of  the  Spaniards,  and  which  was 
said  still  to  be  in  operation.  It  had  been  asserted  that  the 
children  of  a  free  man  and  a  slave  woman  would  be  half-slave 
and  half-free,  and  the  progeny  of  these  children  by  subsequent 
marriage  would  be  classed  as  a  fourth,  an  eighth,  or  a  six 
teenth  slave  or  free.  It  was  said  that  the  natives  recognized 
varying  degrees  of  freedom  and  slavery.  The  king,  in  the 
letter  above  referred  to,  expressed  a  desire  to  know  the  truth 
of  these  reports,  and  he  ordered  the  audiencia  to  instruct  him 
fully  concerning  these  alleged  practices  and  customs.  He 
called  attention  to  the  existing  law  which  forbade  Spaniards 
to  hold  slaves,  and  he  requested  information  as  to  how  great  a 
hold  this  barbarous  custom  had  upon  the  natives,  and  how  it 
might  be  eradicated  with  the  least  possible  inconvenience  and 
loss.56 


r>"'  As  noted  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

56  King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  8,  1609,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 


Miscellaneous  Duties  185 

The  audiencia  was  required  to  submit  data  regularly  con 
cerning  the  religious  orders,  showing  the  number  of  friars  be 
longing  to  each  order  and  designating  the  provinces  that  were 
held  by  each.  The  tribunal  was  often  asked  to  make  recom 
mendations  for  the  regulation  of  the  religious.  As  we  shall 
note  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  one  of  the  regular  duties  of  the 
audiencia  was  to  send  in  a  yearly  report  on  the  number  of 
religious  arriving  in  or  departing  from  the  Islands.  The 
tribunal  had  jurisdiction  over  the  royal  colleges  and  uni 
versities  ;  it  exercised  supervision  over  courses  of  study  and 
instruction  given  in  them,  and  the  oidores  reported  concerning 
these  matters  from  time  to  time. 

The  audiencia  kept  the  court  informed  as  to  the  number  of 
Spaniards  in  the  Islands,  the  occupation  of  each,  and  his  atti 
tude  toward  the  government.  It  reported  011  the  number  of 
Chinese  and  other  foreigners  in  the  Islands,  the  amount  of 
tribute  paid  by  the  Chinese,  and  the  extent  of  the  Chinese 
trade.  From  time  to  time  the  magistrates  were  asked  by  the 
•court  to  make  special  reports  on  these  or  other  subjects.  They 
were  required  to  report  from  time  to  time  011  the  number  and 
services  of  the  officials  of  the  government,  major  and  sub 
ordinate,  whether  they  were  all  needed,  the  quality  of  their 
services,  and  what  reforms  could  be  made  to  effect  greater 
•economy  and  efficiency.  The  audiencia  was  especially  charged 
with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  provincial  officials  were  not 
so  numerous  as  to  be  a  burden  on  the  natives.  The  govern 
ment  realized  that  oppression  of  the  Indians  would  result  from 
the  presence  of  too  many  Spaniards  among  them,  and  the  effort 
was  continually  made  to  limit  the  number  of  these  undesir 
ables.  The  audiencia,  in  short,  was  the  representative  of  the 
king  in  all  these  matters. 

On  several  occasions  the  audiencia  assumed  the  initiative, 
or  assisted  materially,  in  the  accomplishment  of  various  func 
tions  of  an  extraordinary  character.  It  played  an  important 


186  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

role  in  checking  the  epidemic  of  smallpox  which  ravaged  the 
Islands  from  1790  to  1794.  On  January  18,  1790,  Governor 
Marquina  reported  that  this  disease  had  been  playing  havoc 
with  the  Indians  in  various  parts  of  the  Islands.57  He  had 
raised  2385  pesos  by  voluntary  contributions  from  different 
officials  and  corporations,  and  had  appointed  a  committee  to 
administer  the  funds.  This  committee  consisted  of  representa 
tives  of  the  different  religious  communities  and  the  consulado, 
the  archbishop,  the  chief  of  the  contaduria,  the  fiscal,  the 
regent  and  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia.  Soon  after  this 
letter  was  written  Marquina 's  residencia  was  taken,  and  the 
king,  on  January  24,  1794,  wrote  to  the  regent,  asking  him  to 
act  as  executive  of  the  general  committee  already  appointed  to 
conduct  the  campaign  against  this  epidemic,  and  to  report 
what  progress  had  been  made  in  combatting  it,  suggesting 
that  a  general  committee  of  sanitation  should  be  constituted  to 
handle  such  cases  in  the  future.58 

In  the  cedula  of  November  26,  1765,  we  find  another  illus^ 
tration  of  the  extraordinary  functions  of  the  magistrates  of  the 
audiencia.  The  governor  was  ordered  on  this  occasion  to  ap 
point  a  committee  to  consider  ways  and  means  of  remedying 
the  damage  done  to  agriculture  and  commerce  in  the  Islands 
as  a  result  of  the  depredations  of  the  English  upon  their 
occupation  of  various  parts  of  the  Islands.  This  committee 
was  to  consist  of  the  fiscal  as  president,  the  oidores,  the  chief 
of  the  contaduria,  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  of  the  city,  and  the 
alcaldes  may-ores  of  the  districts  immediately  outside  the  city. 
It  was  ordered  to  meet  at  stated  periods  to  discuss  and  re 
commend  ways  and  means  of  improvement,  proper  taxation, 
and  other  measures  calculated  to  bring  about  a  revival  of  agri 
culture.  This  committee  was  the  forerunner  of  the  Socicdad 


."Marquina  to  the  King,  January   18,   1790,   A.   I.,   105-2-10. 
•r>s  King  to  the  Regent  of  Manila,  January  24,  1794,  ibid. 


Special  Investigations  187 

de  Amigos  del  Pals,  which  was  established  during  the  admin 
istration  of  Governor  Jose  Basco  y  Vargas.59 

The  variety  of  the  functions  of  the  audiencia  is  well  illus 
trated  by  a  report  made  on  July  20,  1757,  in  compliance  with 
a  royal  order  of  inquiry  as  to  how  much  money  should  be 
expended  by  the  Philippine  government  on  the  inauguration 
ceremonies  of  the  governor.60  Besides  noting  an  added  duty 
of  the  tribunal,  this  is  illustrative  of  the  pomp  and  ceremony 
utilized  to  impress  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies  with  the 
grandeur  of  Spain  and  her  government.  After  a  lengthy  in 
vestigation,  the  audiencia  stated  in  reply  that  the  government 
of  Peru  had  been  authorized  to  spend  12,000  pesos  in  the 
reception  of  a  viceroy,  while  New  Spain  could  spend  8000 
pesos.  As  much  as  4000  pesos  had  been  spent  in  Manila  in 
times  past.  Since  the  Philippines  was  a  colony  of  less  im 
portance  than  these,  and  the  governor  there  was  of  inferior 
rank  to  the  viceroy,  and  as  even  these  sums  were  extravagant, 
it  was  the  opinion  of  the  tribunal  that  the  government  at 
Manila  should  limit  itself  to  an  expenditure  of  2000  pesos. 
This  may  be  considered  as  an  example  of  the  work  accom 
plished  by  the  oidorcs  in  checking  the  excesses  of  the  other 
officials  and  departments  of  the  government.61 

The  audiencia  had  general  authority  over  the  inspection  and 
censorship  of  books  which  were  printed  in  the  colony  or  im 
ported.  This  power  was  conceded  by  a  series  of  laws  pro 
mulgated  at  different  times  from  1556  to  1668. 62  At  the  earlier 


5»  See,  Plan  economico  del  gobernador  de  Filipinas  Jose  Basco  y 
Vargas,  1  de  Septre.  1119,  y  carta  que  lo  acornpana,  No.  157,  de  11  de 
Dicre  de  1779  (printed);  A.  I.,  106-1-14;  see  Barrows,  History  of  the 
Philippines,  242. 

eo  Memorial  of  July  20,  1757,  A.  I.,  106-4-15. 

ei  See  Moses,  South  America,  on  the  ere  of  emancipation,  27-31, 
for  an  account  of  the  festivities  and  formalities  at  the  installation 
of  the  viceroy  at  Lima.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  audiencia  played 
an  important  part  in  the  ceremonies.  Professor  Moses  here  utilizes 
a  description  contained  in  Juan  y  Ulloa,  Voyage,  II,  46-50. 

6^  Recopilacion,  1-24-1  to  15. 


188  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

date  it  was  ordered  that  no  book  treating  of  the  Indies  should 
be  printed  without  first  having  been  inspected,  approved,  and 
licensed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  none  could  be  intro 
duced  into  the  Indies  without  the  express  permission  of  that 
body.63  Books  of  fables  and  other  profane  publications  were 
not  allowed  in  the  colonies  under  any  circumstances.  The 
Council  of  the  Indies,  by  enactment  of  May  8,  1584,  authorized 
the  audiencia  to  publish  books  and  dictionaries  in  the  native 
dialects,  and  a  later  law  stipulated  that  twenty  copies  of  each 
book  should  be  sent  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  to  be  placed 
on  file  there.64  The  old-ores  and  the  oficiales  reales  whose  duty 
it  was  to  inspect  the  ships  which  arrived  from  New  Spain  were 
ordered  to  search  for  forbidden  and  heretical  books,  but  in 
doing  this  they  must  act  in  conformity  with  the  expurgatories 
of  the  Inquisition/15  By  cedilla  of  October  10,  1575,  and  of 
December  2,  1580,  the  right  to  print  books  of  prayer  and  of 
divine  service  for  Spain'  and  the  Indies  was  conceded  to  the 
monastery  of  San  Lorenzo.  This  same  ced-ida  ordered  that 
viceroys,  presidents,  and  oidores  should  see  that  no  other  serv 
ice-books  were  used  in  the  churches  and  monasteries,  and  that 
books  printed  by  any  other  agency  should  not  be  permitted  to 
enter  the  Islands.06 

In  conformity  with  the  above  regulations,  the  Audiencia  of 
Manila,  on  July  21,  1787,  suppressed  a  book  which  had  been 
written  by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  on  the  ground 
that  this  functionary  had  published  it  on  the  authority  of  the 
archbishop  alone,  and  without  authorization  of  the  Council  of  the 


es  ibid.,   1   and   2. 

64/&M?.,  3;  15.  The  rt'ditla  of  October  10,  1752,  gave  to  the  audi 
encia  the  right  to  authorize  the  publication  of  legal  treatises,  ordi 
nances  and  enactments.  The  regent  was  given  control  over  this 
matter  by  the  Instruection  of  June  20,  1776  (A.  I.,  106-212).  See 
Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general.  III,  304  and  485,  with  reference  to 
the  publication  of  the  autos  acordados  of  1866. 

65  ibid.,  7  and  12. 

so  Ibid.,  8. 


Censorship  of  Books 

Indies,  as  was  required  by  law.  The  case  was  appealed  by  the 
commissary  to  the  Council,  and  the  latter  body,  while  approving 
the  action  of  the  audiencia  in  suppressing  the  book,  and  repri 
manding  the  archbishop,  after  an  examination  of  the  volume, 
allowed  its  publication  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the 
Indies.67  Taken  together,  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the 
commissary  of  the  Inquisition  in  most  matters,  and  particularly 
in  the  publication  of  books,  wrere  harmonious,  and  the  same 
strife  arid  trouble  did  not  occur  in  the  Philippines  that  de 
veloped  in  Mexico,  Naples,  and  Peru  over  the  question.68 

On  January  26,  1816,  the  audiencia  forbade  the  publication 
of  any  book  without  its  express  permission.69  As  a  result,  con 
siderable  trouble  arose  with  the  governor  and  the  fiscal,  neither 
of  whom  had  been  consulted  when  the  auto  was  passed.  The 
fiscal  contended  that  the  audiencia  was  violating  the  law  which 
had  reserved  to  the  Council  the  power  to  give  licenses  for  the 
publication  of  books ;  moreover,  it  was  asserted,  the  law  re 
quired  the  governor  and  audiencia  to  act  in  acuerdo  in  matters 
pertaining  to  the  suppression  and  licensing  of  books,  the  tri 
bunal  not  being  authorized  to  proceed  alone.  The  audiencia 
contended  in  reply  that  these  laws  could  no  longer  be  inter 
preted  to  mean  that  the  governor  should  have  authority  over 
matters  of  a  purely  judicial  nature,  such  as  these  were,  be 
cause  he  was  no  longer  president  of  the  audiencia,  and  hence 
not  a  judicial  official.70  The  tribunal  furthermore  based  its 


«-  Ibid.,  1  and  2. 

68  See  Lea,  The  Inquisition  in  the  Spanish  dependences,  70,  204, 
265;  444-446. 

6'J  Acuerdo  of  January  26,  1816,  A.  I.,  106-4-19. 

'"The  constitutional  reforms  of  1812  included  the  separation  of 
The  governorship  from  the  presidency  of  the  audiencia.  In  1814 
the  governor  was  again  made  president,  and  the  offices  were  not 
entirely  separated  until  1861.  The  governor's  intervention  in  matters 
of  justice  was  merely  nominal,  however,  after  the  creation  of  the 
office  of  regent,  in  1776.— Ccdula  of  March  11,  1776,  A.  I.,  106-2-12; 
Royal  Instruction  to  Regents,  June  20,  1776,  in  Rodriguez  San  Pedro, 
VII.  22-23;  Ordenamaa  para  cl  gobierno  de  hi  Aurlicncia  de  Manila.  9 
de  Octubre,  1812;  A.  I.,  106-4-19;  Acuerdo  de  15  de  Enero,  1814,  ibid. 


190  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

contention  on  two  enactments — one,  a  royal  order  dated  October 
1,  1770,  which  directed  certain  prelates  to  apply  to  the  audiencia 
for  permission  to  have  a  religious  work  published,  and  the 
other,  dated  July  21,  1787,  already  cited,  by  which  the  king 
confirmed  the  refusal  of  the  audiencia  to  allow  the  publication 
of  a  work  prepared  by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  when 
he  had  failed  to  seek  the  authority  of  the  audiencia.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  on  this  occasion  the  audiencia  was  guilty 
of  deliberate  misinterpretation  of  the  law  in  its  own  favor. 
The  Council  of  the  Indies  had  the  final  right  to  decide  as  to  the 
contents  of  the  book,  and  the  audiencia  merely  suspended  pub 
lication,  pending  the  action  of  the  Council.  The  audiencia  was 
never  given  the  power  to  pass  finally  on  the  contents  of  books, 
except  those  dealing  with  languages  and  dialects.  The  ulti 
mate  right  of  passing  on  all  religious  publications  was  retained 
by  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  while  the  audiencia  was  authorized 
merely  to  suspend  the  publication  and  circulation  of  books 
which  had  not  complied  with  the  above  royal  ordinances.  After 
the  suppression  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and  the  establish 
ment  of  the  Supreme  Tribunal  of  Justice,  there  was  a  tendency 
toward  giving  the  colonial  governments  a  wider  degree  of  lati 
tude  in  such  matters. 

It  has  been  noted  already,  in  the  cedilla  of  October  9,  1812, 
and  in  subsequent  reforms,  that  all  matters  of  a  contentious 
nature  should  be  settled  in  the  audiencias  and  not  carried  to  the 
tribunal  in  Spain.  A  further  reform  in  the  censorship  of  books 
was  made  on  October  4,  1839,  when  the  control  of  these  matters 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  two  censors,  appointed  by  the  acuerdo 
and  the  archbishop,  respectively.  In  case  a  decision  were  made  to 
suppress  a  certain  book,  a  legal  proceeding  had  to  be  instituted 
before  the  fiscal,  who  became  the  arbiter  if  a  disagreement  arose 
between  the  censors.  Seizure  was  justified  on  the  grounds  that  the 
publication  contained  something  contrary  to  the  legitimate  in 
terests  of  the  throne  or  of  the  religion.  Condemned  books  were 


Government  Archives  191 

not  only  seized,  but  sent  from  the  colony.71  The  responsibili 
ties  of  censorship  were  thus  shared  until  October  7,  1856,  when, 
on  account  of  the  many  disagreements  which  had  arisen  as  a 
result  of  this  divided  authority,  the  superior  government  de 
creed  that  a  standing  board  of  censors  should  be  created,  to 
consist  of  eight  members,  four  to  be  appointed  by  the  arch 
bishop  and  four  by  the  governor.  This  board  was  to  be  pre 
sided  over  by  the  fiscal  of  the  audiencia.72 

Among  other  important  functions  of  a  non-judicial  character 
was  the  audiencia 's  duty  of  keeping  the  archives  of  the  gov 
ernment.  The  tribunal  had  a  number  of  records  in  which 
entries  were  made  concerning  its  work.73  A  registry  was  kept 
of  the  votes  of  the  oidarcs  in  suits  involving  a  hundred  thou 
sand  maravedis  or  more.  Further,  separate  records  were  kept 
of  all  resolutions  of  the  acucrdo  relative  to  government  and 
finance,  respectively,  Thursday  afternoon  of  each  week  being 
devoted  to  the  latter.  Likewise,  a  book  of  cedillas  and  royal 
provisions  was  kept  by  the  audiencia,  and  on  the  basis  of  these 
the  tribunal  formed  all  judgments  and  gave  advice  when  re 
quested.  Separate  files  were  kept  for  copies  of  all  royal  orders, 
cedillas  and  letters,  one  for  secret,  and  the  other  for  open  cor 
respondence.  In  another  volume  an  account  was  kept  of  the 
amounts  received  from  fines  and  from  funds  liquidated  for  the 
expenses  of  justice.  As  already  stated,  lists  were  also  main 
tained  of  all  persons  residing  in  the  colony,  with  an  account 
of  their  quality  and  work,  their  attitude  toward  the  gov 
ernment,  their  occupation,  and,  if  they  were  officials,  the 
nature  and  character  of  their  services.7*  The  audiencia  kept  a 


-i  Montero  y  Vidal,  III,   30. 

72  lUd.,  251. 

"3  Recopilacion,  2-15-156  to  166. 

"4  On  the  basis  of  this  the  governor  compiled  and  sent  to  Spain 
a  yearly  report  on  the  work  of  the  magistrates,  prosecutors,  and 
subalterns  of  the  audiencia,  setting  forth  the  salaries  paid  and  character 
of  services  rendered,  making  recommendations  for  promotion  or  com 
plaints  against  these  officials.  Vacancies  in  the  tribunal  were  reported 
at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner. 


192  Semi-Judicial  and  Administrative  Functions 

book  of  residencies,  which  has  been  described  in  a  former  chap 
ter.  Also  records  of  persons  coming  to  and  leaving  the  Islands, 
with  appropriate  entries  concerning  them,  were  preserved  in 
this  archive. 

Besides  the  special  duties  of  the  aid-ores  indicated  in  this 
chapter,  there  were  others  which  wrill  be  described  later  in  more 
detail.  The  residencia  has  been  already  treated.  Other  duties 
will  be  noted  in  connection  with  the  relation  of  the  audiencia 
and  the  governor.  Some  are  more  closely  related  to  the  relig 
ious  and  the  ecclesiastical  institutions  of  the  colony,  and  merit 
special  treatment  in  that  connection.  The  audiencia,  more 
over,  had  extensive  functions  in  relation  to  the  commercial  and 
economic  life  of  the  colony.  A  fuller  comprehension  of  these 
numerous  activities  may  be  gained  in  the  following  chapters 
where  they  are  discussed  in  connection  with  two  of  the  most 
powerful  factors  in  the  colony's  life— the  governor  and  the 
church. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  GOVERNOR:  GENERAL 

RELATIONS 

The  audieiicia  was  brought  into  closer  and  more  frequent 
relationship  with  the  governor  than  with  any  other  authority 
in  the  colony.  The  governor  was  president  of  the  royal 
audiencia  and  hence  was  nominally  its  chief  magistrate.  This 
brought  him  into  touch  with  its  functions  as  a  court.  The 
governor  was  chief  executive  of  the  colony,  and  in  that  capacity 
was  responsible  for  administrative,  financial,  and  military  af 
fairs.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  audiencia,  in  various  ways,  exer 
cised  powers  of  intervention  in  all  of  these  matters. 

The  official  title  of  the  governor  of  the  Philippines  up  to 
1861  was  governor,  captain-general,  and  president  of  the  royal 
audiencia,1  a  combination  of  three  important  functions.  In 
his  capacity  as  governor,  he  was  chief  executive  of  the  civil 
government,  with  authority  over  all  administrative  depart 
ments,  including  finance,  and  over  ecclesiastical  affairs.  As 


i  Recopilacion,  2-15-11.  Note  the  brief  discussion  of  this  relation 
ship  in  Smith,  The  viceroy  of  Neiv  Spain,'  152-156.  Dr.  Smith  shows 
that  the  chief  purpose  of  the  Spanish  government  in  establishing  the 
viceroy  and  audiencia  together  was  to  guarantee  a  check  and  balance 
of  one  upon  the  other.  Quoting  Revilla  Gigedo  (Instruction,  Article 
20),  he  says:  "The  presidency  of  the  audiencia  places  the  viceroy  at 
the  head  of  that  body  but  not  to  give  orders  to  it,  as  even  his  acts  in 
matters  of  justice  are  subject  to  it;  and  although  he  is  present  at  its 
sessions,  which  is  very  difficult,  considering  the  grave  and  continuous 
occupations  which  so  vast  a  command  imposes  upon  him,  he  does  not 
have  a  vote  in  matters  which  are  regularly  dealt  with  there — that  is, 
matters  of  justice."  Dr.  Smith  shows  (162)  that  the  effect  of  the  later 
laws  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  to  deprive  "the  viceroys  absolutely 
of  any  part  in  the  procedure  of  the  administration  of  justice,  either 
alone  or  in  company  with  the  other  judges,  voting  with  them  in  the 
audiencia"  (from  Revilla  Gigedo,  Instruction.  Article  64).  The  limita 
tion  of  the  governor  of  the  Philippines  in  legal  matters  is  discussed 
further  on  in  this  chapter. 


194  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

captain-general,  the  governor  was  commauder-in-chief  of  the 
military  forces,  with  the  special  duty  of  providing  for  the  de 
fense  of  the  Islands.  As  president  of  the  audiencia,  the  gov 
ernor  retained  his  authority  as  executive  while  entering  the 
field  of  the  judiciary.  Though  he  could,  not  act  as  judge, 
himself,  nevertheless  we  have  seen  in  former  chapters  that  he 
exercised  extensive  authority  over  the  tribunal,  its  procedure, 
and  its  magistrates. 

It  will  accordingly  be  our  aim  in  this  chapter  to  discuss  the 
general  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the  governor.  These 
include  administrative,  financial,  and  ecclesiastical  functions, 
and  those  involving  the  government  of  the  provinces.  To  these 
will  be  added  such  further  observations  as  remain  to  be  made 
concerning  the  judicial  relations  of  the  governor  and  audiencia, 
leaving  apart  for  discussion  in  another  chapter  as  an  integral 
subject,  the  military  jurisdiction  and  the  respective  participa 
tion  of  the  audiencia  and  the  governor  in  the  matter  of 
defense. 

Generally  speaking,  the  governor  of  the  Philippines  occu 
pied  the  same  relative  position,  within  and  without  the  colony, 
as  did  the  viceroy  in  New  Spain,  and  during  the  greater  part 
of  the  history  of  the  Islands  he  was  independent  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  New  Spain  and  was  responsible  to  the  Spanish  court 
directly,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  viceroy.2  The  independ 
ence  of  the  Philippine  government  may  be  said  to  have  been 
practically  complete,  with  such  exceptions  as  will  be  men- 


2  See  Moses,  Establishment  of  Spcwiish  rule  in  America,  70-71. 

Philip  III  ordered  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain  to  "give  aid  to  the 
governor  and  captain-general  of  the  Philippines  in  whatever  may 
occur,  and  above  all  ...  to  send  him  on  demand  whatever  may 
seem  necessary  of  arms,  men,  munitions,  and  money  for  the  conserva 
tion  of  those  Islands,  salaries,  and  presidios,  and  other  matters  under 
his  care  (Reeopilacion,  3-4-13)."  The  viceroys  also  exercised  a  certain 
degree  of  authority  over  the  despatch  of  the  galleons  from  Acapulco 
(ibid.,  9-45-25  to  31,  47,  74  to  76).  Aside  from  the  points  indicated, 
the  Philippines  were  normally  as  independent  of  New  Spain  as  the 
latter  was  independent  of  the  Philippines. 


The  Governor  and  Captain  General  195 

tioiied  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  treating  of  the  ad  interim  rule, 
after  the  re-establishment  of  the  audiencia  in  1598.  The  gov 
ernor  was  the  chief  administrative  official  of  the  colony,  and 
the  provincial  governments  derived  their  authority  from  him ; 
he  was  the  royal  vice-patron,  and  in  this  capacity  he  bore  the 
same  relation  to  the  church  in  the  colony  as  the  king  did  to  the 
church  in  Spain.  Likewise  as  the  king  was  the  theoretical  head 
of  the  state,  and  was  limited  and  assisted  in  the  exercise  of  his  au 
thority  over  the  empire  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  so  the 
governor  and  captain  general  of  the  Philippines  (and  the  vice 
roy  in  New  Spain  and  Peru)  was  the  head  of  the  colony,  and 
was  limited  by  the  audiencia.  The  audiencias  of  all  the  colo 
nies  were  equally  dependent  on  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 

Professor  Bourne  very  aptly  characterizes  the  office  of  gov 
ernor  of  the  Philippines  and  its  relations  to  the  audiencia.  He 
writes : 

The  Philippine  Islands  were  constituted  a  kingdom  and  placed 
under  the  charge  of  a  governor  and  captain  general,  whose  powers  were 
truly  royal  and  limited  only  by  the  check  imposed  by  the  Supreme 
Court  (the  Audiencia)  and  by  the  ordeal  of  the  residencia  at  the 
expiration  of  his  term  of  office.  Among  his  extensive  prerogatives 
was  his  appointing  power  which  embraced  all  branches  of  the  civil 
service  in  the  islands.  He  also  was  ex  offlcio  the  President  of  the 
Audiencia.  His  salary  was  $8000  a  year,  but  his  income  might  be 
largely  augmented  by  gifts  or  bribes.  The  limitations  upon  the  power 
of  the  Governor  imposed  by  the  Audiencia,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
French  astronomer  Le  Gentil,  were  the  only  safeguard  against  an 
arbitrary  despotism,  yet  Zufiiga,  a  generation  later  pronounced  its 
efforts  in  this  direction  generally  ineffectual.3 

Juan  Jose  Delgado,  who  gives  us  perhaps  the  most  compre 
hensive  and  realistic  survey  of  the  Philippines  of  any  of  the 
ecclesiastical  historians  of  those  Islands,  describes  the  nature 
of  the  office  of  governor  as  follows : 

The  governors  of  these  Islands  have  absolute  authority  to  provide 
and  to  attend  to  all  that  pertains  to  the  royal  estate,  government, 


'•'*  Bourne,  "Historical  introduction,"  Blair  and  Robertson,  I,  49-50. 


196  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

i 

war;  they  have  consultations  in  different  matters  with  the  oidorcs  of 
the  royal  audiencia;  they  try  in  the  first  instance  the  criminal  causes 
of  the  soldiers,  and  they  appoint  alcaldes,  oorregidores,  deputy  and  chief 
justices  of  all  the  Islands  for  the  exercise  of  government,  justice,  war, 
.  .  and  besides  many  other  preeminences  conceded  by  royal  decrees 
to  the  presidency  of  the  royal  audiencia  and  chancery.4 

The  governors  of  these  Islands  [he  wrote]  are  almost  absolute,  and 
are  like  private  masters  of  them.  They  exercise  supreme  authority,  by 
reason  of  their  charge,  for  receiving  and  sending  embassies  to  the 
neighboring  kings  and  tyrants,  .  .  .  they  can  make  peace,  make  and 
declare  war,  and  take  vengeance  on  those  who  insult  us,  without 
awaiting  any  resolution  from  the  Court  for  it.  Therefore  many  kings 
have  rendered  vassalage  and  paid  tribute  to  the  governors,  have 
recognized  them  as  their  superiors,  have  respected  and  feared  their 
arms,  have  solicited  their  friendship,  and  have  tried  to  procure  friendly 
relations  and  commerce  with  them;  and  those  who  have  broken  their 
word  with  them  have  been  punished. * 

The  governor  of  the  Philippines,  like  the  viceroy  of  New 
Spain,  was  the  administrative  head  of  the  colony,  and  as  such 
exercised  supervision  over  all  the  departments  of  the  govern 
ment,  likewise  over  ecclesiastical  affairs.  He  was  directed  to 
devote  himself  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  labor  for  the  wel 
fare  of  the  souls  of  the  natives  and  inhabitants  of  the  prov 
inces,  governing  them  in  peace  and  quietude,  endeavoring  to 
bring  about  their  spiritual  and  moral  uplift  and  their  numeri 
cal  increase.  The  governors  (or  viceroys)  were  instructed  by 
the  laws  of  the  Indies 


4  Delgado,  Historia  dc  Filipin-as,   212-215. 

s  Delgado  illustrates  this  statement  as  follows:  "The  legitimate 
King  of  Borney,  who  had  been  dispossessed  of  his  kingdom  .  .  .  begged 
for  help  from  Don  Francisco  Sande,  Governor  of  these  Islands.  Gov 
ernor  Sande  went  with  his  fleet,  fought  with  and  drove  away  the 
tyrant,  and  put  the  legitimate  king  in  possession;  the  latter  rendered 
obedience  to  the  governor,  appointed  in  the  place  of  the  King  of 
Espaiia,  and  subjected  himself  to  this  crown  as  vassal  and  tributary." 
Further  on  he  writes,  "His  Majesty  also  ordered  Sande,  by  a  decree  of 
April  9,  1586,  to  sustain  friendship  with  China,  and  forbade  him  to 
make  war;  for,  as  some  authors  say,  Sande  had  the  intention  of  con 
quering  that  Empire,  .  .  .  although  it  may  be  said  that  the  idea 
was  simply  speculative;  the  Council  forbade  it,  and  ordered  him 
thenceforth  to  observe  what  was  prescribed"  (ibid.,  see  Blair  and 
Robertson,  XVII,  317-320,  whose  translation  differs  slightly  from  the 
above). 


The  King's  Representative  197 

to  provide  all  things  which  are  convenient  for  the  administration 
and  execution  of  justice,  ...  to  maintain  the  government  and  defense 
of  their  districts,  exercising  very  special  care  for  the  good  treatment, 
conservation  and  augmentation  of  the  Indians,  and  especially  the  col 
lection,  administration,  account  and  care  of  the  royal  exchequer. 

They  were  instructed,  in  short,  to  do  all  for  the  provinces 
under  their  charge6  that  the  king,  himself,  might  do.  The 
laws  of  the  Indies  ordered  the  audiencia,  the  religious  authori 
ties  and  the  civil  officials  to  acknowledge  the  governor  [or 
viceroy]  as  their  chief.  The  laws  emphasized  as  the  special 
duties  of  the  governor  the  supervision  and  augmentation  of  the 
finances,  the  defense  of  the  colony,  and  general  supervision 
over  all  officials,  executive  and  judicial,  central  and  provincial. 

Foremost  among  the  responsibilities  of  the  executive  was  that 
of  supervising  the  administration  of  the  colonial  exchequer. 
In  this,  however,  he  was  assisted  by  the  audiencia.  The  custom 
ary  oficiales  reales  were  among  the  first  officials  created  for 
the  Philippine  government,  and  they  were  responsible  to  the 
governor.  At  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  audiencia,  it  was 
ordered  that  the  governor  and  two  oidores  should  audit  the 
accounts  of  the  oficiales  reales,  but  this  power  was  transferred  to 
Governor  Dasmarinas  when  the  audiencia  was  removed  in  1589. 
In  1602  the  right  of  inspection  of  accounts  was  returned  to  the 
oidores,'  but  the  governor,  it  was  stated,  as  executive  head  of 
the  government,  was  responsible,  and  he  exercised  direct  inter 
vention  in  these  matters,  limited  only  by  the  annual  inspection  of 
the  oidores.  During  the  greater  part  of  the  history  of  the  Islands 
the  governor  exercised  supervision  over  the  collection  and  the 
administration  of  the  public  revenue,  in  accordance  with  the 
law,5  and  he  was  required  to  be  present  at  the  weekly 
meetings  of  the  junta  de  hacienda,  of  which  two  magistrates 


6  Rccopilacion.  3-3-2;   63,  64;   3-14-1,  33. 

•  Instructions   to   Acufia,  February   16,   1602,    Blair   and    Robertson, 
XI,  273-4. 

^Rccopilacion,  3-3-55;    3-2-33. 


198  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

were  members,  there  to  pass  on  all  financial  measures  and  to 
authorize  expenditures.9  The  governor  had  control  over  the  sale 
of  offices,  jointly  with  the  oficiales  reales,  but  from  the  corre 
spondence  on  these  subjects  it  is  clear  that  the  audiencia  was 
designed  to  check  the  governor's  authority  in  that  particular.10 
The  governor  was  forbidden  to  authorize  extraordinary  expendi 
tures  from  the  treasury  without  express  royal  permission,  except 
in  cases  of  riot,  or  invasion.11  This  regulation  was  almost  im 
possible  of  faithful  execution,  and  as  his  duties  increased  and 
became  more  complicated,  the  governor  was  unable  to  give  as 
complete  attention  to  these  matters  as  the  laws  of  the  Indies 
prescribed.  Although  the  governor  had  these  financial  powers, 
he  could  not  decide  cases  appealed  from  the  oficiales  reales. 
These  were  regarded  as  contentious  cases  and  as  such  were 
resolved  by  the  audiencia.12  In  Mexico  and  Lima,  wherein  there 
were  higher  tribunals  of  accounts  than  in  Manila  (contaduria 
mayor],  the  audiencia  did  not  have  this  jurisdiction. 

From  1784  to  1787  the  governor  was  temporarily  deprived 
of  the  leadership  in  financial  matters  by  virtue  of  the  Ordinance 
of  Intendants,  but  the  oidores  retained  membership  in  the 
colonial  board  of  audits,  together  with  the  intendant,  who  had 
taken  the  governor's  former  place  as  the  responsible  head  of 
the  colony's  finances.  In  1787  the  governor  was  restored  to  his 
former  position  with  respect  to  the  exchequer,  with  the  official 
title  of  superintendent e  subdelegado  de  real  hacienda.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  the  governor's  relation  to  this  new  de 
partment  did  not  materially  lessen  the  authority  of  the  audien 
cia  with  regard  to  the  finances  of  the  colony. 

Although  the  appointing  power  was  claimed  by  many  gov- 


3-3-56;  2-15-159. 

10  King  to  the  Audiencia,  December  4,  1777,  A.  I.,  105-2-9.     It  was 
seen   in   the   preceding   chapter,   that   the   audiencia    reported    to    the 
Council  of  the  Indies  on  the  finances  of  the  colony. 

11  Recopiladon,   3-3-57. 

12  Ibid.,  2-15-76  and  77. 


The  Appointing  Power  199 

ernors  as  their  sole  prerogative,  the  audiencia  imposed  a  very 
decided  check  on  their  exercise  of  this  authority.  The  governor 
had  the  right  to  make  appointments  in  all  departments  of  the 
government,  except  in  certain  so-called  offices  of  royal  designa 
tion,  to  which  the  governor  made  tentative  appointments,  sub 
ject  to  subsequent  royal  confirmation.13  Although  the  law  of 
February  8,  1610,  exempted  appointments  made  by  the  gov 
ernor  of  the  Philippines  from  the  necessity  of  royal  confirma 
tion,14  in  practice  these  nominations  were  sent  to  the  court  for 
approval  in  the  same  manner  as  were  those  from  Spain's  other 
colonies. 

The  audiencia  intervened  in  the  matter  of  appointments  in 
two  ways.  In  case  it  succeeded  to  the  government  on  the  death 
of  the  governor  the  tribunal  exercised  all  the  prerogatives  of 
appointment.13  When  the  governor  was  present  he  was  obliged 
to  refer  the  names  of  all  candidates  to  the  acuerdo.™  This  was 
made  necessary  because  the  governor,  being  new  to  the  Islands 
and  unfamiliar  with  local  conditions,  was  not  so  well  fitted  to 
pass  upon  the  merits  of  candidates  for  office  as  were  the 
oido-res  who  had  become  permanently  identified  with  the  inter 
ests  of  the  colony  and  whose  opinion  was  of  weight  in  these 
matters.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the  audiencia  exercised  joint 
authority  with  the  governor  in  making  appointments.17  The 
question  of  the  relative  authority  of  the  audiencia  and  governor 
in  making  appointments  was  a  source  of  conflict  throughout 
the  history  of  the  Islands. 

When  the  governor  submitted  the  name  of  a  candidate  to 
the  acuerdo  it  was  the  duty  of  the  magistrates  to  furnish  all 


irf.,  3-2-1  to  6;  2-15-172.  Governors  and  viceroys  were  author 
ized  by  the  cedilla  of  April  20,  1776,  to  make  permanent  appointments 
to  offices  whose  salaries  did  not  exceed  400  pesos  (ibid.,  3-2,  note  2). 

i4/M(L,   3-2-67. 

ir.  ma.,  3-2-1,  10  to  12,  47,  48;   8-4-24. 

16/fmZ.,   3-2-8. 

iTVillacorta  to  the  King,  July   6,  1767,  A.   I.,   106-4-15. 


200  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

the  information  possible  regarding  the  character,  fitness,  and 
ability  of  the  person  under  consideration  for  the  position.  If 
the  audiencia  and  the  governor  should  disagree  and  the  latter 
still  persisted  in  an  appointment,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
audiencia  to  submit,  forwarding  all  evidence  relative  to  the 
candidate  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  the  latter  body  ulti 
mately  taking  such  action  as  it  deemed  best.  When  the  nomi 
nations  of  the  governor  reached  the  Council  of  the  Indies  for 
confirmation,  that  tribunal  relied  extensively  upon  information 
furnished  by  the  audiencia  concerning  the  candidates  under 
consideration. 

As  already  stated,  the  king  retained  the  right  to  appoint  cer 
tain  so-called  ''officials  of  royal  designation."  These  varied  at 
different  times,  but,  in  general,  included  corregidorcs,  alcaldes 
mayores,  oficiales  reales,  oidorcs,  regents,  and,  of  course,  viceroys, 
governors,  and  captains-general.18  All  these  officials,  except 
those  last  named,  could  be  temporarily  designated  by  the  execu 
tive.  Although  the  law  placed  corregidorcs,  alcaldes  mayores, 
and  oficiales  reales  in  this  category,  their  designation  by  the 
court,  like  the  confirmation  of  cncomiendas,  was  usually  nominal. 
Many  of  these  offices  were  filled  in  Spain  and  Mexico,  while 
some  appointees  were  named  from  the  Philippines,  and  probably 
in  the  majority  of  the  latter  cases  the  royal  appointment  merely 
amounted  to  a  confirmation  of  a  temporary  appointment  made 
by  the  governor.  The  post  of  governor  of  the  Philippines  was 
filled  temporarily  by  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain  until  about  1720. 
In  the  same  manner  the  governor  of  Ternate  was  named  by  the 
Philippine  executive,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  audi 
encia.  These  ad  interim  appointments  were  valid  until  the  king 
made  them  regular  by  confirmation,  or  sent  persons  from  Spain 
to  hold  them  permanently. 

When  a  vacancy  occurred  among  the  offices  of  royal  desig- 


isRecopilacion,  3-2-3,  4  and  note,  21,  22,  47,  70;   5-2-5,  7,  8-4-1. 


The  Appointing  Power  201 

nation,  it  was  the  governor's  duty  to  forward  a  list  of  candi 
dates,  or  nominees,  and  from  this  list  the  king,  or  the  Council 
of  the  Indies  in  his  name,  made  a  permanent  appointment.19  In 
the  meantime  a  temporary  appointment  was  often  made  by 
the  governor,  in  acuerdo  with  the  audiencia,  and  the  name  of 
the  appointee  was  placed  first  on  the  list  remitted  to  the  court. 
This  procedure  was  followed  in  the  appointment  of  encomen- 
deros,  corrcgidores,  alcaldes  mayores,  and  treasury  officials.  It 
was  seldom  done  in  the  cases  of  oidores  and  fiscalcs,  who,  be 
cause  of  their  special  or  professional  character,  were  usually 
sent  directly  from  Spain  or  from  New  Spain.  Unless  there  were 
special  reasons  to  the  contrary,  for  instance,  the  filing  of  an 
adverse  report  by  the  audiencia,  or  a  protest  on  the  part  of  resi 
dents,  the  governor's  temporary  appointments  were  usually  con 
firmed  and  made  permanent.  Temporary  appointees  with  sal 
aries  exceeding  1000  pesos  a  year  only  received  half-salary  until 
their  appointments  were  confirmed.20  At  least  two  years  and 
frequently  four  transpired  before  the  regular  appointment 
arrived,  and  as  the  terms  were  from  three  to  five  years  for  the 
majority  of  these  offices,  the  governor's  candidate  was  usually 
the  incumbent  a  considerable  portion  of  the  time,  whether  his 
nomination  were  confirmed  or  not.  Neither  relatives  nor  de 
pendents  of  governors  or  aidores  could  be  legally  appointed  to 
any  office.21  This  mandate  was  often  violated,  as  we  shall  sec. 
It  was  the  duty  of  the  regent  and  the  fiscal  to  certify  to  the 
court  that  appointees  were  not  relatives  of  the  governor  or 
oidores." 

In    an    instruction    directed    exclusively    to    the    Philippine 
audiencia,  the  king  ordered  the  tribunal  to  see  that  offices  were 


.,  3-2-1,  2,  3,  8-4-1. 
20  Ibid.,  51.    After  February  20,  1785,  this  regulation  applied  only  to 
offices  yielding  more  than  2000  pesos  a  year. — Ibid.,  note  17. 
^Ibid.,  27. 
22  Ibid.,  33,  38. 


202  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

bestowed  only  upon  persons  "who  by  fitness  or  qualifications 
are  best  able  to  hold  them."23  It  appears  that  this  law,  or 
another  promulgated  about  the  same  time,  gave  to  the  fiscal 
and  the  oidores  the  right  to  pass  on  the  qualifications  of 
cncomenderos,  alcaldes  may  ores,  corregidores,  and  other  minor 
officials,  on  condition  that  preference  should  be  given  to  con 
querors,  settlers,  and  their  descendants.  Governor  Alonso  Fa- 
jardo  remonstrated  that  this  new  practice  hampered  the  work  of 
the  governor,  and  created  difficulties  between  him  and  the 
oidores.2*  A  yet  later  law,  dated  October  1,  1624,  gave  the 
governor  (and  viceroy)  the  right  to  make  temporary  appoint 
ments  of  all  judicial  officials,  without  the  interposition  of  the 
audiencia.25  On  February  22,  1680,  the  power  of  making  per 
manent  appointments  of  alcaldes  ma-yores  and  corregidores  was 
vested  in  the  governor  and  the  audiencia.20  In  view  of  this 
law,  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  claimed  and  actually  exercised 
authority  in  the  appointment  of  provincial  officials  from  that 
time  onward. 

Vacancies  in  the  audiencia  itself  were  filled  temporarily  by 
the  governor.  In  case  the  audiencia  were  governing  ad  interim 
it  could  designate  magistrates  from  the  outside  to  try  cases, 
but  the  power  of  the  audiencia,  as  provided  by  these  laws, 
was  secondary  to  that  of  the  governor  if  he  were  present. 
Under  no  circumstances  were  permanent  appointments  to  the 
audiencia  to  be  made  by  any  authority  other  than  the  king  and 
Council.  In  case  there  were  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  fiscal 
the  junior  o-id&r  was  authorized  to  fill  the  place.27  Conversely, 
it  also  occurred  that  when  an  extra  oidor  was  needed,  the 


23  King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  9,   1609,  A.    I.,   105-2-1. 

24  Fajardo   to  the  King,   December   10,   1621,    Blair   and   Robertson, 
XX,   138-140. 

25  Reoopilacion,  2-15-34;    5-12-24;    2-16-29. 
^Ilid.,    2-2-70. 

27 /bid.,   3-2-45;    2-16-29. 


Appointments  203 

fiscal  might  be  temporarily  designated  to  fill  the  place.28  It 
was  also  ordered  that  if  the  fiscal  could  not  be  spared  from  his 
office  on  account  of  his  numerous  and  important  duties,  a 
lawyer  might  be  named  to  act  as  fiscal  ad  interim.29  In  New 
Spain  an  alcalde  del  crimen  took  the  place  of  the  junior  oidor 
when  the  latter  occupied  the  fiscalia.  There  were  no  alcaldes 
del  crimen  in  the  Philippines,  but  the  cedula  of  February  8, 
1610,  above  cited,  was  always  quoted  as  furnishing  justification 
for  the  appointment  of  oidores  ad  interim  by  the  governor.30 
In  a  subsequent  chapter  we  shall  refer  to  several  occasions  on 
which  this  was  done ;  indeed,  entire  audiencias  were  re-consti 
tuted  by  certain  governors. 

The  audiencia  was  required  to  see  that  the  appointees 
designated  by  the  governor  duly  complied  with  the  require 
ments  of  residencies;  likewise  that  they  were  properly  installed 
in  office,  and  that  they  did  not  serve  in  offices  for  which  they 
had  neither  authority  nor  qualifications.31  Notwithstanding  the 
variety  and  the  conflicting  character  of  the  laws  bearing  011 
matters  of  appointment,  a  careful  consideration  of  law  and 
practice  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  governor,  as  chief 
executive,  had  the  power  of  making  appointments,  but  in  the 
execution  of  this  duty  he  was  ordered  to  consult  the  audiencia, 
although,  strictly  speaking,  he  was  not  obliged  to  follow  its 
advice.  If  there  were  good  reasons  for  not  appointing  an 
official  recommended  by  the  governor,  the  oidores  could  send 
representations  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  setting  forth  their 


28  Although  a  sufficient  number  of  oidores  were  usually  present 
in  Manila  to  suffice  for  the  judicial  needs  of  the  audiencia,  on  many 
occasions  there  were  only  two  or  three  available.  When  but  few 
cases  were  before  the  tribunal,  the  junior  oidor  could  easily  be 
spared  to  act  as  fiscal.  However,  when  a  magistrate  was  needed, 
owing  to  the  multiplicity  of  cases  to  be  tried,  or  the  absence  of 
two  or  more  magistrates  on  special  commissions,  the  need  was  very 
urgent,  and  the  fiscal  was  then  liable  to  be  called  upon  to  serve. 

20  Recopilacion,  2-16-30. 

3-2-67. 
d.,  2-15-173  and  174. 


204  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

objections,  and  the  Council  might  confirm  or  nullify  the  ap 
pointment,  as  it  chose.  The  audiencia  could  make  appointments 
if  it  were  in  temporary  charge  of  the  government.  The 
authority  which  the  audiencia  exercised  in  regard  to  appoint 
ments  varied  according  to  circumstances.  If  the  governor 
were  new  at  his  post,  weak  or  indulgent,  the  audiencia  exer 
cised  more  extensive  authority  than  was  conceded  by  the  laws. 
If  the  governor  wrere  experienced,  efficient,  and  a  man  of  strong 
personality  and  dominating  character,  the  tribunal  exercised 
less  power  in  regard  to  appointments,  and,  in  fact,  in  all  other 
matters  pertaining  to  government. 

Closely  related  to  the  appointing  power  was  the  duty  which 
the  governor  had  of  submitting  annually  to  the  court  a  list  of 
all  the  officials  of  the  colony,  with  comments  on  the  character 
of  their  services,  and  with  recommendations  for  promotion  or 
dismissal  from  office.32  The  o-idores  were  included  in  these 
reports.33  It  was  also  the  function  of  the  governor  to  report  on 
the  administration  of  justice.34  The  governor  was  instructed 
to  inform  the  court  in  case  the  oidores  engaged  in  forbidden 
commercial  ventures,  either  directly,  through  the  agency  of 
their  wives,  or  through  other  intermediaries.35  He  was  author 
ized,  moreover,  to  investigate  and  report  on  the  public  and 
private  conduct  of  the  magistrates  and  of  their  wives  as  well36 
and  to  exert  himself  to  see  that  their  actions  were  at  all  times 
in  consonance  with  the  dignity  of  their  rank  and  positions  and 
of  such  a  character  as  would  reflect  credit  on  the  roval  name 


3-3-70. 

ss  Hid.,  3-14-6,  7;  Felipe  III  to  Fajardo,  December  13,  1620,  Blair 
and  Robertson,  XIX,  174-175. 

34  Rccopilacidn,  3-14-5,  6,  8. 

ss  Ibid.,  2-16-59,  62  to  64;  3-3-39.  A  confirmation  of  the  latter 
was  so  often  reported  that  it  seems  to  have  been  expected,  and 
nothing  was  done  about  it.  It  would  seem  that  practically  every 
official  in  the  colony  conducted  a  mercantile  business  as  a  side-issue. 

36  Felipe  IV  to  Fajardo,  October  9,  1623,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XX, 
259;  Recopilacion,  2-16-66,  67. 


Permission  to  Marry  205 

and  entitle  them  to  the  respect  of  the  residents  of  the  colony. 
The  confidential  reports  of  the  governor  to  the  king  might 
include  all  of  these  matters,  and  many  others  too  numerous  to 
mention.  On  the  other  hand,  the  audiencia,  as  a  body,  was 
authorized  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  Council  to  any  irregu 
larities  of  which  the  governor  might  be  guilty,  and  thus  a 
system  of  checks  and  balances  was  maintained.37  However,  the 
oidores  were  forbidden  to  make  charges  individually.  This 
injunction  was  so  frequently  disregarded  that  it  was  practically 
a.  deadletter. 

Typical  of  the  governor's  authority  over  all  the  officials 
of  the  colony,  and  incidentally  over  the  oidores,  was  his  power 
to  grant  or  withhold  permission  to  marry  within  the  colony. 
The  earlier  laws  011  this  subject  absolutely  forbade  viceroys, 
presidents,  oidores,  alcaldes,  or  their  children  to  marry  within 
their  districts.38  Deprivation  of  office  and  forfeiture  of  sal 
ary  were  the  penalties  for  infraction  of  these  regulations, 
These  laws  were  followed  by  others  which  required  the  presi 
dent  (viceroy  or  governor)  to  report  immediately  to  the  Council 
the  case  of  any  magistrate  guilty  of  violating  the  law  for 
bidding  the  marriage  of  officials.39  It  was  not  until  1754  that 
a  law  was  promulgated  providing  for  special  marriage  dispen 
sations  to  be  granted  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  president  of  the  audiencia.40  In  1789 
the  president  was  authorized  to  concede  permission  to  account 
ants  and  treasury  officials,  but  not  to  oidores.*1  The  prohibi- 


37  Recopilacion,  2-15-36,  39,  40. 

ss  ibid.,  2-16-82  to  84. 

so  ibid.,  87. 

40  Ibid..  82,  note  20  (Ceihila  of  January  23,  1754). 

•11  Ccdnla  of  July  13,  1789,  A.  I.,  107-5-20.  On  June  21,  1784, 
the  Council  of  the  Indies  recommended  that  permission  to  marry 
within  his  district  be  accorded  to  Oidor  Ciriaco  Gonzales  Carvajal 
(A.  I.,  105-3-2);  the  same  concession  was  recommended  in  the  case 
of  Oidor  Felipe  Cisneros,  June  30,  1788  (A.  I.,  105-3-4),  and  again 
to  Francisco  Xavier  de  Mendieta,  January  22,  1791  (A.  I.,  105-3-5). 


206  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

tion  was  applied  to  magistrates  until  1843,  and  the  only  condi 
tion  under  which  they  were  permitted  to  marry  within  the 
colony  was  by  virtue  of  the  express  permission  of  the  supreme 
tribunal  in  Spain.  In  1848,  the  president  of  the  audiencia  was 
authorized  to  grant  marriage  licenses  to  magistrates  on  condi 
tion  that  the  contracting  parties  were  "of  equal  quality,  cus 
toms,  and  of  corresponding  circumstances,"  permission  having 
first  been  obtained  from  Spain,4-  the  president  alone  passing 
upon  the  requisite  qualifications. 

The  chief  reason  for  the  restrictions  and  prohibitions  placed 
on  the  marriage  of  magistrates  seems  to  have  been  the  con 
viction  that  officers  of  justice  would  compromise  themselves  by 
marriage,  acquiring  vast  numbers  of  relatives  and  dependents, 
thereby  making  it  impossible  to  render  impartial  decisions  or 
administer  justice  as  evenly  and  dispassionately  as  they  would 
were  they  not  so  familiarly  known  in  their  districts.  It  was  also 
necessary  to  prevent  officials  from  lowering  their  dignity  by 
union  with  natives  and  half-castes.  The  marriage  of  officials 
with  natives  of  the  Philippines  was  not  regarded  with  favor 
at  any  time  by  the  Spanish  government. 

It  seems  that  the  above  prohibition  did  not  apply  with  the 
same  force  to  fiscales  as  to  magistrates.  This  is  illustrated  by 
a  case  which  arose  in  1804  when  Fiscal  Miguel  Diaz  de  Rivera 
was  deprived  of  his  office  by  royal  decree  for  having  married 
without  the  permission  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.43  The 
fiscal  had  married  the  daughter  of  the  corrcgidor  of  Pan- 
gasinan,  who  was  a  colonel  in  the  Spanish  army.  The  mother 
of  the  girl  was  a  Eurasian  from  Madras,  and  had  been  a 
subject  of  Great  Britain.  Under  the  date  of  May  27,  1805, 
Diaz  sent  a  petition  to  the  king,  bearing  the  endorsement  of 
Governor  Aguilar,  demanding  his  restoration  to  office.  Among 


42  Royal  order  of  April  3,  1848;    Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislacidn 
ultramarina,  VII,  79. 

43  Royal  order  of  December  2,  1804,  A.  I.,  106-4-18. 


The  Governor  and  tlie  Magistrates  207 

the  reasons  cited  for  the  proposed  reinstatement  of  the  fiscal, 
it  was  said  that  Diaz,  being  a  prosecutor  and  not  a  magis 
trate,  was  not  subject  to  the  same  regulations  and  conditions 
as  the  oidores,  whose  judicial  duties  rendered  impossible  their 
marriage  within  the  Islands.  Aguilar  stated  that  the  purpose 
of  the  law  had  been  to  debar  ministers  from  making  such 
marriage  connections  as  would  diminish  the  respect  which  the 
community  should  have  for  them  as  oidores  of  a  royal  audien- 
cia,  thus  undermining  their  standing  as  magistrates.  In  this 
instance  there  could  have  been  no  case  of  degradation  because  of 
the  high  standing  of  the  mother  and  father.  Moreover,  a  fiscal 
could  not  be  regarded  as  a  magistrate,  and  the  same  laws  did  not 
apply  to  both  classes  of  officials.  As  an  outcome  of  these  repre 
sentations  Diaz  was  restored  to  office  by  the  royal  decree  of 
October  13,  1806.44 

A  duty  similar  to  that  just  noted,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
indicative  of  the  authority  of  the  governor  over  the  oidores,  was 
his  power  to  examine  and  try  criminal  charges  against  the 
magistrates.  A  law  which  was  in  force  from  1550  to  1620 
ordered  that  the  president  should  be  assisted  in  the  trial  of 
criminal  charges  against  oidores  by  alcaldes  ordinarios.  On 
September  5,  1620,  this  law  was  modified  by  the  enactment  of 
another,  which  ordered  that  in  cases  involving  imprisonment, 
heavy  fines,  removal  from  office,  or  the  death  penalty,  the  gov 
ernor  should  make  the  investigation  and  refer  the  autos  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  for  final  judgment. 

This  law  still  left  the  trial  of  oidores  for  misdemeanors  in 
the  governor's  jurisdiction,  but  in  cases  of  sedition  or  notorious 
offenses  which  required  immediate  action  in  order  to  furnish  a 
public  example  for  its  effect  on  the  natives,  the  president  was 
required  to  confer  with  the  audiencia,  and  to  act  in  accordance 
with  its  judgment.  By  this  law  the  president  was  forbidden 


Royal  decree  of  October  13,  1806,  A.  I.,  106-4-18. 


208  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

to  make  more  than  temporary  suspensions  of  oidores  from  their 
offices.  In  110  ease  could  they  be  permanent  unless  first 
approved  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.43  Notwithstanding  this 
law,  it  may  be  noted  that  certain  governors  went  so  far  on 
some  occasions  as  to  remove,  imprison,  and  exile  magistrates  and 
to  appoint  a  new  audiencia. 4(i  The  judicial  power  of  the  gov 
ernor  over  such  cases  was  further  altered  by  the  Royal  Instruc 
tion  of  Regents  of  June  26,  1776,  by  which  he  was  forbidden  to 
impose  any  penalty  on  the  oidores  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  acuerdo  and  the  regent.47  The  president  and  the  acnerdo 
could  rebuke  and  discipline  oidores,  privately,  when  their  con 
duct  demanded  it.  Even  on  such  an  occasion  as  this  the 
magistrate  was  to  be  given  full  opportunity  to  defend  himself. 
If  a  private  investigation  of  the  conduct  of  an  oidor  were 
necessary,  the  inquiry  could  be  still  conducted  by  the  senior 
magistrate.48  Oidores,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  jurisdiction 
over  the  trial  of  charges  against  the  president,  unless  it  were 
in  his  residcncia.  In  this  event  the  investigation  might  be  con 
ducted  by  a  magistrate  designated  by  the  governor  or  by  the 
Council  of  the  Indies.49 

Aside  from  his  executive  and  military  duties,  the  governor 
was  president  of  the  royal  audiencia.  This  arrangement  had 
the  advantage  of  giving  him  an  opportunity  to  know  and 
appreciate  the  legal  needs  of  the  colony.  It  brought  him  in 
constant  contact  with  judicial  minds,  and  his  position  in  this 
regard  \vas  110  doubt  calculated  to  keep  him  in  the  straight  and 


•t-' Laws  of  May  3,  1605  and  September  5,  1620,  Recopilacion,  2- 
16-43  and  44. 

46  This  was  done,  for  example,  by  governors  Fajardo  and  Busta- 
mante,  while  this  law  was  still  in  force  (1618-1624  and  1717-1719 
respectively).  The  observation  of  this  law  in  Chile  was  commanded 
in  a  royal  order  expedited  to  the  president  of  the  audiencia  there  on 
September  22,  1725;  see  Rccopilacion,  2-16,  note  13. 

4"  Ife/d.,  note  14. 

4s/6i(Z.,   2-16-51. 

40  Discussed    in  Chapter   IV   of  this   treatise. 


The  President  of  the  Audiencia  209 

narrow  path  of  the  law.  Nevertheless,  the  governor,  who  was 
usually  a  soldier,  but  seldom  a  lawyer,  did  not  participate  as 
a  magistrate  in  the  trial  of  cases,  and  his  activities  in  the 
tribunal  were  directive,  rather  than  judicial.  His  opinions 
in  all  legal  and  administrative  matters  were  prepared  by  his 
asesor.50 

As  president  of  the  audiencia  the  governor  exercised  two 
important  powers.  One  authorized  him  to  divide  the  audiencia 
into  salas  and  to  designate  oidores  to  try  cases  within  the 
tribunal,  to  inspect  the  provinces,  to  take  residcncias,  or  to 
attend  to  se'mi-admiiiistrative  matters,  such  as  have  been  noted 
in  the  preceding  chapter.51  The  other  was  the  power  to  decide 
whether  a  contention  was  of  judicial,  governmental,  military, 


so  Governors,  captains-general,  and  viceroys  were  assisted  by  an 
asesor,  or  legal  adviser,  who  gave  his  opinion  in  all  matters  of  law 
that  came  up  for  solution.  The  necessity  for  this  official  developed 
through  the  fact  that  as  most  governors  were  soldiers,  they  were 
incapable  of  rendering  judgment  on  legal  and  administrative  ques 
tions.  As  counselor  to  the  governor,  this  official  bore  the  same 
relation  to  the  executive  as  the  fiscal  did  to  the  audiencia.  The 
oscsor  was  held  responsible  in  the  rcsidencia  for  all  decisions  ren 
dered  by  the  governor  in  matters  of  justice,  and  in  governmental 
affairs  the  governor  and  asesor  were  jointly  responsible.  Frequently 
the  asrsor  was  able  to  block  completely  the  work  of  the  audiencia 
and  his  opinion  nullified  the  judgments  of  magistrates  who  were 
as  learned  in  the  law  and  as  well  qualified,  if  not  better,  than  he. 
Martinez  de  Zufiiga  (Estadismo.  I,  224)  discusses  the  influence  of  the 
asesor  in  the  following  terms:  "Expedientes  are  sent  to  one  of  the  two 
royal  fiscales  to  ascertain  their  legality;  afterwards  they  are  sent 
to  the  afsesor  whom  the  governors  must  consult;  the  latter  place 
(of  a&effor)  is  a  very  good  one,  .  .  .  besides  2000  pesos  as  salary 
it  has  its  private  revenues  in  addition  to  500  pesos  yearly  from  each 
of  the  royal  monopolies  (discussed  in  Chapter  V  of  this  volume). 
There  are  many  persons  in  Manila  who  are  exempted  from  ordinary 
justice  through  their  military  connections  or  on  account  of  being 
employed  in  the  royal  monopolies,  and  as  they  depend  on  him,  he 
exercises  great  power;  .  .  .  there  are  few  who  desire  him  for  an 
enemy,  for  when  they  least  think  of  it  they  are  in  need  of  his 
favorable  opinion  in  some  expedicnte  which  they  have  brought 
before  the  government."  The  laws  of  the  Indies  forbade  that  an 
oidor  should  act  as  the  governor's  ascfior  if  any  other  appointee 
with  the  requisite  qualifications  were  available  (Recopilacion,  3-3-35, 
and  note).  See  cf'dula  (and  accompanying  expedientes)  of  Septem 
ber  26,  1756,  A.  I.,  106-4-16. 

5i  Recopilacion,  2-15-61  to  63,  169;  2-16-12,  31,  32. 


210  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

or  ecclesiastical  character,  and  to  assign  it  to  the  proper 
department  or  tribunal.52  This  power  was  significant  because 
it  made  the  governor  the  supreme  arbiter  between  all  conflict 
ing  authorities  in  the  colony.  Frequently  he  decided  disputes 
between  the  audiencia  and  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  between  the 
audiencia  and  the  conxulado,  or  between  the  oidorcs  and  the 
oficiales  realcs  in  matters  relative  to  the  jurisdiction  of  these 
tribunals  over  questions  at  issue. 

While  the  magistrates  were  allowed  to  proceed  practically 
without  interference  in  affairs  of  justice,  the  governor  was 
instructed  to  keep  himself  informed  concerning  the  judicial 
work  of  the  audiencia.53  While  forbidden  to  alter  the  judg 
ments  of  the  tribunal  or  to  tamper  with  its  sentences,54  he 
could  excuse  or  remit  fines  with  the  consent  of  the  oidorcs.  The 
governor  ceuld  commute  sentences  in  criminal  cases.  The  final 
pardoning  power  rested  with  the  king  and  it  was  exercised 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  governor  or  the  prelates53  and 


52 /bid.,  2-15-38. 

•r'« /bid.,    3-3-36,    38. 

™  /bid..  3-3-60.  Relative  to  the  relations  of  the  viceroys  and  audi- 
encias  of  the  Spanish  colonies,  Robertson  (The  History  of  America,  IV, 
19-20)  says:  "The  Spanish  viceroys  have  often  attempted  to  intrude 
themselves  into  the  seat  of  justice,  and  with  an  ambition  which  their 
distance  from  the  controul  (sic-)  of  a  superior  rendered  bold,  have 
aspired  at  a  power  which  their  master  does  not  venture  to  assume  .  .  . 
the  viceroys  have  been  prohibited,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  by  repeated 
laws,  from  interfering  in  the  judicial  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  Audi 
ence,  or  from  delivering  an  opinion,  or  giving  a  voice  with  respect  to 
any  point  litigated  before  them.  In  some  particular  cases,  in  which  any 
question  of  civil  right  is  involved,  even  the  political  regulations  of  the 
viceroy  may  be  brought  under  review  of  the  court  of  Audience,  which 
in  those  instances,  may  be  deemed  an  intermediate  power  between  him 
and  the  people,  as  a  constitutional  barrier  to  circumscribe  his  juris 
diction.  But  as  legal  restraints  on  a  person  who  represents  the  sov 
ereign,  and  is  clothed  with  his  authority,  are  little  suited  to  the  genius 
of  Spanish  policy;  the  hesitation  and  reserve  with  which  it  confers 
this  power  on  the  courts  of  Audience  are  remarkable.  They  may 
advise,  they  many  remonstrate;  but  in  the  event  of  a  direct  collision 
between  their  opinion  and  the  will  of  the  viceroy,  what  he  determines 
must  be  brought  into  execution,  and  nothing  remains  for  them,  but 
to  lay  the  matter  before  the  king  and  the  Council  of  the  Indies." 

•r>.r.  Rccopilacion,  3-3-27,  promulgated  July  19,  1614,  conferred  general 
pardoning  power  on  the  viceroy. 


The  Regent  211 

the  Council  of  the  Indies.  There  were  exceptional  occasions, 
however,  on  which  the  governor  assumed  the  responsibility  of 
pardoning  criminals. 

After  the  creation  of  the  office  of  regent  in  the  audiencias 
of  the  colonies,  in  1776,  the  governor's  position  as  presi 
dent  of  the  audiencia  became  purely  nominal,  the  regent 
actually  officiating  as  chief  justice,  though  the  president 
was  still  legally  required  to  affix  his  signature  to  all  judicial 
decisions  of  the  tribunal.  The  frequent  and  extended  absences 
of  the  governor  from  the  capital  and  the  multiplicity  of  his 
administrative  duties  prevented  him  from  attending  to 
these  matters  with  requisite  promptness,  and  injustice  conse 
quently  resulted  from  the  requirement.  Many  complaints  were 
made  from  1776  onward  against  this  condition  of  affairs,  with 
the  result  that  a  modification  in  the  existing  law  was  made  on 
October  24,  1803,  making  valid  the  signature  of  the  regent 
to  all  decisions  of  the  audiencia,  when  the  governor  was  absent 
from  the  colony  on  expeditions  of  conquest  or  tours  of  inspec 
tion.50  At  all  other  times  the  governor,  as  president,  affixed 
his  signature  to  all  legal  acts  and  autos,  although  he  did  not  par 
ticipate  in  their  decisions.  The  law  remained  thus  until  1861, 
when  the  governorship  was  separated  from  the  presidency,  the 
acuerdo  was  abolished,  and  the  regent  was  made  president  of 
the  audiencia  with  authority  to  sign  all  judicial  decisions.57 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  governor  exercised  special 
judicial  powers,  independent  of  the  audiencia.  Among  these 
the  military  jurisdiction  stands  pre-eminent,  and  it  will  be 
discussed  separately  in  the  following  chapter.  The  governor 
was  also  empowered  to  try  Indians  in  first  instance,  with 
appeal  to  the  audiencia.58  The  actual  trial  of  these  cases, 


56  Regent   to   the    King,    July    9,    1793,    A.    I.,    106-4-18;    Ccdula   of 
October  24,  1803,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 

57  Royal  decree  of  July  4,  1861,  Coleccion  Icgislativa,  LXXXVI,  1-45. 
ss  Reco'pilaci'on,  3-3-65.     It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  New  Laws  of 


212  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

however,  was  delegated  to  the  alcaldes  may  ores  and  corregi- 
dores  with  appeal  to  the  audiencia.  It  was  impossible  for  the 
governor,  occupied  as  he  was  with  the  multitudinous  affairs  of 
his  office,  to  concern  himself  personally  with  the  thousands  of 
petty  cases  among  the  Indians,  or  between  Indians  and 
Spaniards.  He  had  jurisdiction  over  suits  involving  the  con 
demnation  of  property  through  which  public  roads  were  to 
pass.59  The  special  jurisdiction  of  the  governor,  assisted  by 
the  audiencia,  over  cases  affecting  the  royal  ecclesiastical 
patronage  will  be  discussed  later. 

The  laws  of  the  Indies  would  seem  to  indicate  that  both 
the  governor  and  the  audiencia  exercised  independently  the 
power  to  exile  undesirable  residents  from  the  colony.  It  was 
stipulated  that  if  sentence  of  exile  were  passed  by  the  gov 
ernor  and  the  offenders  were  sent  to  Spain,  the  necessary 
papers,  issued  by  the  governor,  should  accompany  them.00  If 
the  decree  of  banishment  were  imposed  by  the  audiencia  in  its 
judicial  capacity,  the  governor  was  forbidden  to  commute  the 
sentence  or  otherwise  interfere  in  the  matter.61  The  audiencia 
frequently  sentenced  criminals  or  other  undesirables  to  spend 
terms  of  varying  lengths  in  the  provinces  or  in  the  Marianas. 


1542  conferred  on  the  audiencias  the  duty  of  protecting  the  Indians. 
Professor  Moses,  in  his  Spanish  dependencies  in  South  America,  I, 
(212-3),  says:  "The  audiencias  were  commanded  to  inquire  into  the 
treatment  which  the  Indians  had  received  at  the  hands  of  governors 
and  private  persons;  and,  in  case  of  excesses  and  ill-treatment,  the 
guilty  parties  should  be  punished.  .  .  .  While  it  was  acknowledged 
that  some  persons  had  a  sufficient  title  to  hold  Indians,  it  was  ordered 
that  when  the  number  held  was  excessive,  the  audiencia  should  gather 
the  necessary  information  and  reduce  the  allotments  made  to  the  said 
persons  in  a  fair  and  moderate  quantity  'and  place  the  rest  under  the 
Crown'." 

53. 

3-3-61;  3-4-7.  We  have  a  notable  illustration  of  this 
in  the  banishment  of  Archbishop  Poblete  by  Governor  Salcedo  (1663- 
1668)  as  a  result  of  the  resistance  of  the  former  to  Salcedo's  inter 
vention  in  ecclesiastical  matters  on  the  basis  of  the  royal  patronage. 
Salcedo  did  not  solicit  the  aid  or  intervention  of  the  audiencia  in 
this  matter. 

2-16-8. 


The  Audiencia  as  a  Check  213 

This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  commonly  one  of  the  trials  con 
nected  with  the  residencia.  We  have  a  noteworthy  illustra 
tion  of  the  action  of  the  audiencia  in  acuerdo  with  the  gov 
ernor  in  the  banishment  of  Archbishop  Felipe  Pardo,  who  was 
exiled  by  the  acuerdo  of  the  audiencia  and  Governor  Juan  de 
Vargas  Hurtado,  in  1684.  Vargas  was  succeeded  the  same  year 
by  Governor  Curuzaelegui,  who  recalled  the  prelate  from  exile 
and  forced  the  audiencia  to  endorse  the  act  of  recall. 

Closely  related  to  the  governor's  jurisdiction  over  banish 
ment  was  his  jurisdiction  over  cases  of  persons  entering  the 
Islands  or  departing  from  them  without  royal  permission.62 
He  exercised  final  jurisdiction  here  over  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  encomender&s,  and  private  persons.  The  law  for 
bade  any  person  to  enter  or  leave  the  Islands  without  the  royal 
permission,  and  the  governor  was  charged  with  the  execution 
of  this  law.  Encomenderos  were  not  to  leave  the  Islands  on 
pain  of  confiscation  of  their  encomiendas.6"  While  the  laws  of 
May  25,  1596,  and  of  June  4,  1620,  gave  authority  to  the 
governor  over  the  religious,  relative  to  their  entrance  into  the 
Islands  and  departure  therefrom,64  the  cedilla  of  July  12,  1640, 
authorized  the  audieucia  to  enforce  the  law  on  this  subject ; 
especially  was  the  tribunal  to  see  that  no  ecclesiastics  departed 
for  Japan  and  China  without  the  proper  authority.65  Al 
though  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  finality  of  the  governor's 
jurisdiction  in  this  matter,  yet  the  audiencia  exercised  an  ad 
visory  power,  and  an  authority  to  check  irregularities,  particu 
larly  with  a  view  to  seeing  that  the  governor  did  his  duty  and 
fulfilled  his  obligations  in  the  matter.  Numerous  instances 
exist  to  show  that  whenever  this  subject  was  treated  in  a  royal 
order  or  decree,  copies  of  the  law  were  sent  to  the  audiencia 


3-3-58;    King  to  Audiencia,  March   6,  1781,   A.   I.,   105-2-9. 
«s  Instruction  to  Tello,  May  25,  1596,  Blair  and  Robertson,  IX,  229, 
232-233,   238-239. 

64  Rcoopilacion,   1-14-29   to   31. 
ss  ibid.,  31. 


214  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

for  its  information.  On  other  occasions  when  there  was  reason 
to  believe  that  there  had  been  irregularities  in  the  procedure  of 
a  governor,  the  audiencia  complained  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.  This  was  done  for  example  in  1779  when  Governor 
Sarrio  conceded  permission  for  several  priests  to  go  to  Mexico. 
This  action  the  audiencia  claimed  to  be  irregular,  since  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  had  not  been  notified  or  consulted.  The 
king,  on  March  6,  1781,  approved  the  action  of  the  governor 
on  the  basis  of  the  laws  above  referred  to.66 

Besides  his  judicial  authority  the  governor  shared  legisla 
tive  functions  with  the  audiencia.  We  have  noted  in  an 
earlier  chapter  that  the  acuerdo  passed  ordinances  for  the  do 
mestic  welfare  and  local  government  of  the  colony.  It  pre 
scribed  rules  and  issued  regulations  for  merchants,  encomen- 
deros.  and  religious,  in  accordance  with  the  rulings  for  royal 
ecclesiastical  patronage.  The  acuerdo  developed  from  the  ad 
visory  power  of  the  audiencia.  The  king  in  his  first  decrees 
ordered  the  viceroys  and  presidents  to  consult  with  the  oidores 
whenever  the  interests  of  the  government  demanded  it,67  and 
if  necessary  the  opinions  of  the  magistrates  could  be  required 
in  writing.  When  an  agreement  was  reached  upon  a  given 
subject,  they  voted  in  acuerdo  and  gradually  that  acuerdo 
came  to  have  the  force  of  law.  On  many  occasions  the  acuerdo 
prevailed  over  the  governor's  will.  There  was  no  constitutional 
basis  for  this,  and  the  acuerdo,  when  it  became  a  legislative 
function  in  passing  ordinances  and  overruling  the  governor 
himself,  assumed  prerogatives  which  were  never  exercised  by 
the  audiencias  of  Spain.68 

The  laws  of  the  Indies  established  the  governor  as  the  sole 
executive,  and  forbade  the  audiencia  to  interfere  with  the  gov- 


ee  King  to  the  Audiencia,  March  6,  1781,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 
G7  Recopilacion,    3-3-45. 

es  This  is  treated  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  book.     See  Solorzano, 
Politico,  Indiana,  II,   271-279. 


Development  of  the  Acuerdo  215 

eminent.69  The  governor,  occupied  by  his  extensive  adminis 
trative  and  military  duties,  came  to  devote  less  attention  to 
the  judicial  side  of  his  office,  which  was  left  almost  entirely 
to  the  audiencia.  So  it  developed  that  the  acuerdos  in  ref 
erence  to  judicial  matters — the  establishment  of  tariffs  and 
rules  for  their  observance  and  the  dispatch  of  pesquisidores 
and  visitors  to  the  provinces,  came  in  the  latter  eighteenth 
and  early  nineteenth  centuries  to  be  increasingly  the  concern 
of  the  audiencia.  The  authority  of  the  tribunal  in  these  mat 
ters  was  recognized  by  the  Constitution  of  1812  and  the  re 
forms  made  in  pursuance  thereof.70 

In  the  same  manner  the  acucrdo  came  to  be  recognized  in 
governmental  and  administrative  matters.  The  enactments  of 
these  legislative  sessions  of  the  audiencia  were  known  as  autoa 
acordados.  They  ultimately  came  to  embrace  a  wide  field. 
The  audiencia  passed  laws  for  the  regulation  of  the  provinces; 
it  made  rulings  which  the  alcaldes  mayores  and  oorregidorcs 
were  to  follow  in  the  collection  of  tribute ;  it  prescribed  their 
relations  with  the  parish  priests;  it  issued  regulations  for  the 
conduct  of  the  friars  and  the  ordinary  clergy  relative  to  the 
royal  patronage.  Laws  were  passed  for  the  encouragement 
of  agriculture  and  industry  and  the  regulation  of  commerce. 
Rice,  tobacco  and  silk  culture,  the  production  of  cinnamon  and 
cocoanuts,  the  breeding  of  fowls,  the  regulation  of  cock-fighting, 
cloth-making  and  ship-building  all  came  in  for  their  share  of 
attention  in  the  acuerdo.71 


c»  Recopilacion,   2-15-11. 

70  Constitution  of  1812,  Martinez  Alcubilla,  III,  408  ct  seq. :  Acucrdo 
for  the  promulgation  of  the  Constitution  of  1812,  Montero  y  Vidal,  III, 
404;    Acuerdo  of  January  15,  1814,   Ordcnanzas,   etc.,  A.    I.,  106-4-19 
C(''dula.  of  September  26,  1835,  Zamora  y  Coronado,  Apcndicc,  41-138 
Royal  Decree  of  January  30,  1855,  Coleccimi  Icgislativa,  LX,  105-14V 
see  also   Royal   Instruction  to  Regents,  June  20,   1776,  and  Cedilla  of 
April  8,  1778,   in  Rodriguez  San   Pedro,  Legislation  ultra  mar  in  a,  VII, 
22-28. 

71  Ordinances    enacted    by    the    Audiencia    of    Manila,    June    13    to 
December    19,    1598,    Blair    and    Robertson,    X,    293-316;     Ordinances 


216  Audieneia  and  (Governor:    General  Relations 

The  audieneia.  in  the  exercise  of  the  acuerdo  power,  passed 
ordinances  for  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  forbidding-  the 
unauthorized  departure  of  persons  from  the  Islands;  it  helped 
to  fix  the  rate  of  passage  on  the  galleons  and  on  the  coast-wise 
ships.  It  made  regulations  for  the  Chinese  in  the  Parian,  it 
prescribed  the  conditions  under  which  licenses  might  be  issued 
to  Chinese  merchants  and  it  passed  ordinances  for  the  better 
enforcement  of  the  laws  prohibiting-  the  immigration  of  the 
Chinese.  The  acuerdo  concerned  itself  with  the  maintenance 
of  prisons  and  the  care  of  prisoners,  the  rcsidencias  of  provin 
cial  officials,  the  auditing-  of  accounts,  the  collection  of  the 
revenue,  and  the  supervision  of  the  officials  of  the  treasury. 
Ordinances  were  passed  enforcing  the  general  law  which  or 
dered  that  the  natives  should  not  live  together  in  Christian  com 
munities  without  marriage,  that  they  should  attend  religious 
ceremonies,  that  they  should  be  instructed  in  religion,  and  that 
they  should  not  be  exploited,  either  by  the  civil  or  ecclesias 
tical  authorities.  It  is,  of  course,  understood  that  the  audieneia 
in  no  way  trespassed  the  authority  of  the  church  in  issuing- 
these  regulations;  indeed  it  was  quite  the  contrary;  these  ordi 
nances  were  passed  on  the  basis  of  the  authority  of  the  royal 
patronage,  \vith  the  design  of  assisting  the  vice-patron  (the 
governor)  in  the  execution  of  his  duties,  and  the  church  was 
aided  rather  than  impeded  thereby.  It  must  be  remembered, 
of  course,  that  the  governor,  as  president  of  the  audieneia,  pre 
sided  in  these  acucrdos,  and  that  in  most  cases,  actually,  as  well 
as  in  theorv,  these  untos  acordados  were  his  will. 


etc.,  January  7,  to  June  15,  1599,  ibid.,  XI,  1-81.  Reference  may 
also  be  made  to  the  five  volume  Coleednn  de  uutos  aeordados  de  la 
real  audieneia  .  .  .  de  Manila.  1861-1866:  see  also  Estadixtieas  de  las 
eausas  y  e.rpedientea  dc  gobienw  despachadas  por  In  audieneia  de 
Filipinas  durante  el  a  no  de  18!f>.  For  New  Spain  we  have  the 
Recopilaeii'iii  sumaria  de  algunos  autos  aeordados  de  la  real  audieneia 
de  Nucva  Efipana,  Mexico,  3787.  Of  similar  import  and  character  was 
the  well-known  collection  of  Puga,  cited  in  the  bibliography  of  this 
volume.  See  also  Solorzano,  Politiea  Indiana  (2  vols.). 


The  Acuerdo  217 

There  were  many  occasions  in  the  history  of  the  Islands 
when  the  acuerdo  was  influential  in  the  formulation  of  far- 
reaching  reforms.  The  well-known  "Ordinances  of  Good  Gov 
ernment,"  issued  by  Governor  Corcuera  in  1642  for  the  ob 
servance  of  the  provincial  officials,  and  repromulgated  with 
modifications  by  Cruzat  y  Gyngora  in  1696  and  by  Raon  in  1768 
were  formulated  by  the  acuerdo.72  Similarily  were  those  formu 
lated  that  were  proposed  by  Marquina  in  1790.  The  local  regula 
tions  for  the  consulado,  established  in  1769,  were  formulated  by 
the  audiencia  largely  on  the  recommendations  of  the  able  fiscal, 
Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana.  In  the  same  manner  the  new  plan 
of  constitutional  government  given  to  the  Philippines  in  1812  was 
drafted  by  the  audiencia  at  the  request  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.73  Likewise  the  plans  for  the  government  of  the  intendancy 
were  submitted  to  the  acuerdo  by  Governor  Basco  y  Vargas  in 
1785.  Indeed,  these,  as  well  as  the  scheme  of  1787-8,  were  actually 
written  by  two  magistrates  of  the  audiencia,  the  former  plan 
by  Oidor  Ciriaco  Gonzales  Carvajal,  subsequently  intendant, 
and  the  latter  by  Oidor  Castillo  y  Negrete.74 

There  were  occasions  when  the  audiencia  enacted  adminis 
trative  measures  in  which  the  governor  failed  to  participate. 
These  were  especially  noticeable  during  the  administrations  of 
Acuna,  Fajardo,  and  Corcuera — governors  who  spent  much  of 
their  time  away  from  Manila.  A  more  recent  instance  of  this 
occurred  in  1790  when  the  natives  of  the  province  of  Ilocos 
revolted  against  a  tyrannical  and  dissolute  alcalde  mayor.  The 


"-Blair  and  Robertson,  L,  191-264;  see,  also,  Montero  y  Vidal,  His- 
toria  general,  I,  380-385,  also  correspondence  relative  to  the  modifica 
tions  of  these  ordinances  by  Raon  in  A.  I.,  105-4-5.  Marquina's  efforts 
along  this  line  may  be  noted  in  A.  L,  105-4-6. 

'''•Acuerdo  of  January  15,  1814,  A.  I.,  106-4-19;  see  also  Montero 
y  Vidal,  Hiatoria  general,  III,  404;  430. 

-4  Carvajal  to  the  King,  December  5,  1785,  A.  I.,  107-5-14;  Car 
vajal  to  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  December  29,  1787,  A.  I.,  107-5-15; 
Testimonio  del  expediente  sobre  poner  la  real  jurisdiction  y  el  gobierno 
v  policia  de  estas  islas  en  el  ser  y  estado  que  tenian  antes.  Decembfer  20, 
1788,  A.  I.,  107-5-18,  105-3-5. 


218  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

acucrdo,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  Governor  Marquina, 
removed  the  offending  official  and  appointed  another,  and  this 
action  was  subsequently  approved  by  the  king.7-"'  According  to 
the  laws  of  the  Indies  the  authority  of  removal  and  appoint 
ment  of  such  officials  rested  with  the  governor.76  The  tendency 
of  the  acuerdo  to  act  in  civil  affairs  without  the  advice  or  pres 
ence  of  the  governor  was  checked  by  the  royal  order  of  November 
12,  1840,  wherein  the  audiencia  was  ordered  not  to  attempt  to 
carry  its  acucrdos  into  execution  without  the  authority  of  the 
superior  government.77  The  evil  effects  of  the  audiencia 's  inter 
vention  in  provincial  government  were  pointed  out  in  1842  by 
Sinibaldo  de  Mas,  when  he  wrote  :  "the  government  of  the  prov 
inces  is  in  charge  of  an  alcalde-mayor,  who  is  at  once  judge  of 
first  instance,  chief  of  political  matters,  subdelegate  of  the  treas 
ury,  and  war-captain  or  military  commandant,  for  whose  differ 
ent  attributes  he  is  subject  to  authorities  distinct  from  one  an 
other."78 


"5  King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  13,  1793,  A.   I.,  105-2-10. 

"6  Kecopilacion.  3-2-70    (after  1680),  67. 

"Rodriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation  ultra  marina,  VII,  67. 

"s  Mas,  "Internal  political  condition  of  the  Philippines,"  in  Blair 
and  Pvobertson,  LI  I,  70-73.  Mas  was  a  Spanish  diplomatic  official  sta 
tioned  in  China,  who  visited  the  Islands  in  1842  on  a  semi-official 
mission.  This  writer  was  not  favorably  impressed  with  the  effective 
ness  of  the  aeitrrdo.  He  wrote:  "Whatever  difficulty  occurs  in 
the  fulfilment  of  an  order,  it  must  be  solved  by  means  of  a 
conference  and  advice  \confiulta],  from  which  a  reply  is  not  obtained 
until  from  twelve  to  fourteen  months."  Instead  of  governmental 
matters  being  referred  to  the  acuerdo.  Mas  stated  that  they  were 
referred  to  Spain,  hence  there  was  great  delay.  He  stated  that  the 
governor  scarcely  decided  any  question  by  himself,  and  those  which 
were  solved  in  the  colony  were  referred  to  the  asesor,  and  "from  this 
practice,"  he  continued,  "arises  the  system  of  expediences,  which 
reigns,  and  which  is  so  fatal  to  the  prosperity  and  good  government 
of  the  country,  since  very  often  the  arrangement  that  appears  good 
to  some,  is  contrary  to  the  opinions  or  interests  of  others.  .  .  .  Thus 
much  valuable  time  is  lost,  and  the  expedientes  result  in  only  a 
waste  of  paper,  besides  great  injury  to  the  islands.  The  governor 
often  has  to  conform  to  the  opinions  expressed  in  the  expediente, 
although  he  knows  they  will  be  the  cause  of  injustice.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  governor  is  often  directly  at  fault,  because  he  enforces 
his  own  opinion  on  his  assessor  (sp.),  who  has  often  obtained  his 


The  Acuerdo  219 

The  audiencia  was  deprived  of  its  acucrdo  power  in 
in  governmental  matters  by  the  Constitution  of  1812,  but  it 
was  still  retained  in  judicial  affairs.  In  1815  and  again  in 
1823  on  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy,  the  full  acucrdo 
power  as  practiced  before  1812  wras  resumed  by  the  audiencia. 
Official  recognition  of  the  acuerdo  was  made  publicly  by 
Governor  Torres,  who  succeeded  Enrile  on  March  18,  1834.  In 
his  inaugural  address  this  governor  avowed  his  purpose  to  be 
the  extension  and  improvement  of  commerce,  the  army  and 
agriculture,  "but,  in  order  to  develop  these  to  their  highest  ex 
tent,  and  to  realize  the  utmost  success  in  my  administration," 
he  said,  "I  count  on  the  co-operation  of  all  the  authorities, 
and  particularly  of  the  real  acuerdo,  of  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  be  president."70  The  audiencia  was  finally  excluded  from  the 
acuerdo  in  administrative  matters  by  the  reform  of  July  4,  1861  ; 
since  then  the  tribunal  has  been  purely  judicial,  the  legislative 


position  through  favoritism  and  is  not  a  lawyer,  and  decides  ques 
tions  according  to  the  will  of  the  governor.  .  .  .  The  chiefs  of  the 
various  departments  carry  on  correspondence  with  the  directors- 
general  of  their  respective  departments  in  Madrid,  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  governor,  a  fact  that  increases  the  confusion  and 
disorder."  (See  also  Revilla  Gigedo's  description  of  the  evils  of  the 
expediente  in  New  Spain  [1790].  Smith,  The  viceroy  of  New  Spain, 
190-191.) 

This  description  of  the  Philippine  government  in  1842  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  aside  from  the  limitations  imposed  upon  his  rule  by 
the  audiencia,  the  governor  was  obliged  to  contend  with  a  number  of 
other  officials,  departments,  and  regulations,  which  effectively  prevented 
him  from  exercising  absolute  powrer,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  efficiency. 
We  note  in  this  description,  moreover,  that  tendency  of  Spanish  colonial 
government  which  has  been  emphasized  so  often  in  this  treatise— 
namely,  the  failure  of  the  home  government  to  leave  to  the  colonial 
officials  sufficient  scope  of  action  or  authority  to  deal  adequately 
with  the  ordinary  problems  of  government.  Up  to  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  audiencia  was  the  only  civil  authority  or 
tribunal  present  to  exercise  any  check  on  the  executive  in  adminis 
trative  affairs.  However,  in  the  last  century  the  importance  of  the 
audiencia  in  this  regard  was  diminished  by  the  creation  of  other 
departments,  ministries,  and  offices,  by  the  elimination  of  time  and 
space,  due  to  the  progress  of  invention,  which  brought  the  colonies 
nearer  to  Spain,  and  finally  by  the  fact  that  the  tribunal  itself  was 
more  and  more  confined  to  judicial  affairs. 

™  Governor  Torres  to  the  Queen,   March   18,   1835,  A.    I.,   106-4-21. 


220  Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

functions  of  government  having  been  assumed  by  the  Adminis 
trative  Council  (Consejo  de  Administration)  of  which  the  presi 
dent  and  fiscal,  and  usually  two  oidores  at  least  were  members. 
Thus,  even  after  the  reform  of  1861,  the  oidores  continued  to  par 
ticipate  in  legislative  functions,  though  the  audiencia  as  a  body 
did  not.80 

Typical  of  the  multitudinous  duties  of  the  governor,  and 
illustrative  at  the  same  time  of  his  relations  with  the  audiencia, 
were  the  various  subjects  treated  in  the  Instruction  of  the 
king  to  Governor  Pedro  de  Acufia,  dated  February  16,  1602,81 
which  is  chosen  for  citation  here  because  of  its  comprehensive 
character,  and  also  because  of  its  availability.  Beginning 
with  the  reminder  that  the  governor  should  confer  with 
the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain  whenever  necessary,  this  com 
prehensive  paper  treated  first  of  the  defense  of  the  Islands 
against  the  Japanese,  and  of  the  maintenance  of  a  garrison  in 
Mindanao.  The  matter  of  tribute  was  taken  up,  and  the  de 
sirability  was  shown  of  having  the  natives  pay  tribute  in  kind 
rather  than  in  money.  It  was  said  that  the  latter  method 
encouraged  the  natives  to  indolence,  for  as  soon  as  they  had 
earned  enough  money  to  pay  their  tribute  they  ceased  work 
altogether.  The  governor  was  advised  to  consult  with  the 
audiencia  in  regard  to  this  matter.  The  king  ordered  the  gov 
ernor  to  cut  down  expenses  and  to  economize  by  the  elimina 
tion  of  as  many  offices  as  possible.  He  recommended,  in  particu 
lar,  the  abolition  of  the  offices  of  corregidor  and  alcalde  mayor. 


s<>  Colcccion  legislative,  de  Espana,  LXXXVI,  1-45.  Elliott,  in  his 
Philippines  to  the  end  of  the  military  regime,  p.  242,  states  incorrectly 
that  this  reform  took  place  in  1865.  Mr.  Elliott  did  not  make  use  of 
the  sources.  It  is  to  be  noted,  too,  that  Dr.  Barrows  in  his  article  on 
"The  governor  general  of  the  Philippines,"  in  The  Pacific  Ocean  in 
history  makes  contradictory  statements  relative  to  this  matter.  On 
page  242  he  asserts  that  the  governor  was  president  of  the  audiencia 
till  1844,  and  on  page  248  the  statement  occurs  that  "a  further  special 
ization  of  1861  deprived  the  governor-general  of  his  judicial  powers." 

si  Instruction  of  the  King  to  Governor  Acufia,  February  16,  1602, 
Blair  and  Robertson,  XI,  263-88. 


The  Sphere  of  the  Governor  221 

The  king  warned  Acuna  against  a  continuation  of  the  dis 
honesty  of  past  governors  in  the  lading  of  ships  for  New  Spain. 
He  declared  that  thereafter  the  allotment  of  freight  should 
not  be  left  to  the  friends  of  the  governor,  but  the  matter 
should  be  personally  supervised  by  the  governor  and  an  oidor. 
The  frauds  which  had  been  common  also  in  the  assignment  of 
encomiendas  in  the  colony  must  cease ;  to  effect  this  the  gov 
ernor  was  temporarily  deprived  of  jurisdiction  over  this  matter. 
Who  was  to  assign  the  cnco-mirndas  in  the  future  was  not 
divulged.82 

The  governor  was  instructed  to  see  that  the  salable  offices 
were  not  conferred  on  the  relatives  of  the  oidores,  nor  given  to 
his  own  relatives,  but  that  they  should  be  disposed  of  to  per 
sons  offering  the  most  money  for  them.  It  had  been  charged 
that  governors  and  audiencias  had  connived  together  in  the 
past  to  deprive  persons  of  offices  to  which  they  W7ere  legiti 
mately  entitled.  This  had  been  done  by  allowing  favorites  to 
hold  more  than  one  office,  and  by  favoritism  in  the  sale  of  these 
positions.  These  abuses  must  be  stopped,  the  king  said ;  it  was 
ordered  that  in  the  future  no  person  should  be  allowed  to  hold 
more  than  one  office,  that  as  many  of  these  as  possible  should 
be  sold,  with  unrestricted  competitive  bidding. 

The  governor  and  the  fiscal  were  ordered  to  exercise  care 
and  diligence  in  the  inspection  of  the  returning  galleon,  to  see 
especially  that  it  brought  no  unregistered  money  from  persons 


SL>  Fray  Sanchez,  in  his  memorial  of  July  26,  1586,  stated  that  the 
audiencia  had  stopped  the  practice  of  conceding  encomicndas  (A.  I., 
67-6-27),  which  the  governors  had  followed  prior  to  its  estab 
lishment.  Nevertheless  the  governor's  authority  to  bestow  encomi- 
ctulas  was  recognized  by  the  royal  instructions  to  Governor  Dasmaririas, 
issued  May  25,  1593  (Blair  and  Robertson,  IX,  232).  The  statement 
of  Sanchez  may  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  audiencia  had 
stopped  the  abuses  which  had  been  perpetrated  by  various  governors 
in  bestowing  cncomiendas  on  their  friends.  Eucomicndas  were  con 
ceded  by  different  governors  in  the  Philippines  throughout  the 
eighteenth  century.  This  matter  has  been  discussed  in  an  earlier 
note. 


Audiencia  and  Governor:    General  Relations 

in  Mexico.  Acuiia's  predecessor,  Tello,  had  recommended  that 
west-bound  galleons  should  stop  at  the  Ladrones  to  leave  priests 
and  soldiers,  and  to  minister  to  the  needs  of  Spaniards  already 
there.  This  was  authorized  and  the  governor  was  instructed 
to  see  that  it  was  done.  The  governor  was  also  ordered  on  this 
occasion  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  audiencia.  Complaints 
had  been  coming  to  the  court  for  a  long  time  against  the  laxity 
of  the  tribunal  in  the  administration  of  justice,  and  of  the 
commercial  activities  of  the  oidores.  The  governor  was  to  aid 
the  fiscal  in  the  prosecution  of  any  oidores  who  were  remiss, 
to  the  extent  of  sending  them  under  arrest  to  New  Spain  if 
the  charges  against  them  justified  such  action. 

This  Instruction,  it  will  be  noted,  required  the  governor  to 
intervene  actively  in  practically  all  the  governmental  affairs 
that  came  up  in  the  colony.  He  was  to  exercise  authority  with 
regard  to  defense,  finance,  and  revenue.  He  was  to  exercise 
supervision  over  provincial  affairs  so  as  to  insure  the  good 
treatment  of  the  natives  and  the  beneficent  administration  of 
the  encomiendas.  He  was  to  give  his  attention  to  the  galleon 
trade  and  to  the  disposal  of  offices  within  the  colony.  If  doubt 
or  difficulty  arose  in  any  of  these  matters  of  administration,  he 
was  to  demand  from  the  audiencia,  its  assistance,  counsel,  and 
support.  The  governor  was  also  authorized  to  sec  that  justice 
was  administered  effectively,  though  he  was  not  to  intervene 
directly  in  that  matter,  except  to  see  that  abuses  were  er- 
radicated.  This  Instruction  shows  that  the  governor  was  re 
garded  as  the  chief  executive  of  the  government.  He  was  the 
responsible  head  in  the  judicial,  administrative,  and  military 
spheres.  The  audiencia,  on  the  other  hand,  had  consultative 
functions,  aimed  to  assist  the  governor  when  he  required  it, 
but  to  restrict  him  when  he  sought  to  exceed  his  powers.  In 
structions  similar  to  this  were  given  to  many  succeeding  gov 
ernors.  A  citation  of  these  would  prove  nothing  new,  however. 

In  the  same  manner  that  the  Instruction  to  Acufia  gives  us 


Their  Respective  Spheres  223 

an  idea  of  the  relative  functions  of  the  audiencia  and  the  gov 
ernorship  in  1602,  so  the  criticisms  of  the  able  Spanish  diplo 
mat,  Sinibaldo  de  Mas,  written  in  1842,  aid  us  in  estimating 
their  respective  spheres  in  the  nineteenth  century.  This  opin 
ion  is  valuable  because  it  summarizes  the  result  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  of  the  interaction  of  these  political  institutions 
in  the  Islands.  Mas  showed  the  reason  for  the  establishment 
of  the  intendancy,  and  the  conferring  of  added  powers  upon 
the  audiencia  and  criticized  the  relations  existing  between  the 
governor  and  these  institutions  in  the  following  terms : 

To  set  some  balance  to  his  power  (that  of  the  governor),  because 
of  the  distance  from  the  throne,  certain  privileges  and  preeminences 
have  been  granted  to  other  persons,  especially  to  the  Audiencia,  even 
to  the  point  of  making  of  the  latter  a  court  of  appeal  against  the 
measures  of  the  chief  of  the  islands.  Besides,  the  revenues  have 
been  removed  from  his  jurisdiction,  and  the  office  of  the  intendant  has 
been  constituted,  who  obeys  no  others  than  the  orders  communicated 
to  him  by  the  ministry  of  the  treasury  from  Madrid.  It  is  very 
obvious  that  this  single  point  is  quite  sufficient  to  paralyze  completely 
the  action  of  the  governor-general.  Besides,  since  there  are  many 
matters  which  require  to  be  passed  on  by  distinct  ministries,  it  hap 
pens  that  two  contrary  orders  touch  the  same  matter,  or  that  one  order 
is  lacking,  which  is  enough  to  render  its  execution  impossible  ...  a 
chief  may  detain  a  communication,  even  after  he  has  received  it,  if 
it  does  not  suit  him.  This  system  of  setting  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
the  governor  of  a  distant  colony  is  wise  and  absolutely  necessary, 
.  .  .  there  results  rather  than  a  balance  among  the  various  depart 
ments  of  authority  a  confusion  of  jurisdictions,  the  fatal  fount  of 
eternal  discord. ss 


ss  Mas,  "Internal  political  conditions  of  the  Philippines,  1842," 
Blair  and  Robertson,  LII,  69-70  and  note.  The  keen  observations  of 
this  official  on  social  and  governmental  conditions  in  the  Philippines 
are  peculiarly  pertinent,  and  they  are  as  true  in  many  regards  today  as 
they  were  seventy-five  years  ago.  He  recommended  a  regency  to  gov 
ern  the  Philippines,  consisting  of  the  governor  as  president,  a  military 
commander  and  an  intendant  of  finance.  The  audiencia,  according  to  his 
plan  of  reform,  was  to  be  limited  to  judicial  affairs,  with  appellate  juris 
diction  over  civil,  criminal,  and  commercial  cases.  Instead  of  the 
audiencia  as  a  court  of  appeals  against  the  governor,  the  regency 
was  to  entertain  appeals  from  the  audiencia.  Many  of  his  ideas 
were  incorporated  into  the  new  laws  of  the  last  half  of  the  nine 
teenth  century  (ibid.,  78-85). 


224           Audiencia   and  Governor:    General  Relations 

Mas  made  extensive  quotations  which  were  calculated  to 
show  "the  great  confusion  and  contrariety  of  the  orders  to  gov 
ernor  and  audiencia."  This  characteristic  of  the  laws  of  the 
Indies  has  repeatedly  been  referred  to  in  this  treatise,  and  we 
shall  note  its  results  in  a  subsequent  chapter  dealing  with  the 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  the  audiencia  and  the  gov 
ernor. 

It  is  clear,-  therefore,  that  the  decision  of  the  governor  was 
not  final  in  administrative  affairs.  Persons  dissatisfied  with 
his  executive  actions  or  decisions  in  such  matters  were  privi 
leged  to  appeal  to  the  audiencia.  If  the  findings  of  the  tribunal 
differed  from  those  of  the  governor,  and  if  the  governor  were 
still  unyielding,  his  will  was  to  be  obeyed  but  the  case  was 
thereupon  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.8*  If  the  case 
were  one  of  law  and  justice  the  governor,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  instructed  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  audiencia,  but 
he  was  privileged  to  carry  the  case  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
Thus  it  was  that  each  of  these  authorities  had  a  sphere  wherein 
its  word  was  law,  and  its  decisions  final  in  the  colony. 

It  was  prescribed,  however,  that  when  there  were  differences 
of  opinion  between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  an  effort 
should  be  made  both  by  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  to 
avoid  notorious  disagreements  which  would  furnish  a  bad  ex 
ample  to  the  natives,  or  otherwise  degrade  the  dignity  of  the 
royal  tribunal  or  governor.  Viceroys,  presidents,  and  audi- 
encias  were  forbidden  to  take  action  in  cases  wherein  there  was 
doubt  as  to  their  jurisdiction,  or  wherein  there  was  a  question 
as  to  the  advisability  of  taking  final  action.85 

It  would  appear,  therefore,  from  this  survey  of  the  laws, 
that  the  audiencia  was  provided  with  ample  means  for  restrain 
ing  the  action  of  the  governor.  This  it  could  do  either  by  ad 
monition,  by  appealing  from  his  decisions  in  administrative 


,  5-12-22;    2-15-35;    36,  41. 
3-3-51. 


Limitations  on  the  Governor  225 

matters,  or  by  blocking  him  in  the  acuerdo.  It  was  evidently 
the  design  of  those  who  planned  the  legislation  of  the  Indies 
to  guard  at  all  times  against  the  excesses  of  an  all-powerful 
executive.  Such  was  certainly  the  purpose  of  the  establishment 
of  the  audiencia,  both  in  the  Americas  and  in  the  Philippines. 
Taking  into  consideration  the  three  hundred  years  of  Philip 
pine  history,  however,  it  cannot  be  said  that  in  the  actual 
operation  of  the  government  these  precautions  were  entirely 
effective. 

According  to  the  laws  of  the  Indies  the  governor,  as  execu 
tive,  had  his  own  sphere  in  which  the  old-ores  were  forbidden 
to  interfere.86  In  the  light  of  our  investigation,  however,  it 
would  appear  that  this  exclusive  field  was  exceedingly  limited, 
and  that  even  it  was  continually  subject  to  the  encroachments 
of  the  audiencia.  In  the  exercise  of  his  military  authority  the 
governor  was  independent  of  the  tribunal,  although  we  shall 
see  that  on  some  occasions  the  audiencia  exercised  military 
jurisdiction  in  an  executive  capacity,  and  that  there  were  times 
when  the  governor  was  glad  to  call  upon  the  audiencia  for 
assistance  in  this  matter.  As  president  of  the  audiencia  the 
governor  exercised  considerable  authority  during  the  first  half 
of  the  history  of  the  colony,  but  from  1776  to  1861  his  posi 
tion  as  president  was  merely  nominal,  and  at  the  latter  date 
it  was  abolished.  He  was  the  chief  administrative  official  of 
the  colony,  and  his  authority  in  this  particular  was  more  far- 
reaching  than  in  any  other.  In  this,  however,  he  was  limited 
by  the  acuerdo  of  the  audiencia,  which  developed,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  an  advisory  to  a  legislative  function,  and  ultimately 
had  the  effect  of  limiting  the  governor  in  his  hitherto  exclusive 
field. 


id.,  2-15-35,  36,  41;   3-3-2,  34,  42;   3-14-1;  5-12-22. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE   GOVERNOR:   THE 
MILITARY   JURISDICTION 

The  isolation  of  the  Philippines,  their  distance  from  the 
home  country  and  New  Spain,  and  their  proximity  to  the  colo 
nies  and  trade  routes  of  rival  nations,  made  the  problem  of 
defense  the  foremost  consideration.  This  was  almost  equally 
true  of  New  Spain,  Peru,  and  the  West  Indian  colonies,  all  of 
which  were  exposed  to  the  attack  of  outside  enemies,  though, 
of  course,  they  were  neither  as  isolated  nor  as  far  away  as  the 
Philippines. 

The  necessity  of  being  ever  on  the  alert,  constantly  pre 
pared  to  resist  invasion  and  to  put  down  insurrection,  gave  a 
military  character  to  the  governments  of  these  colonies.  The 
viceroys  and  governors  were  in  most  cases  trained  soldiers.  In 
addition  to  their  other  prerogatives,  they  exercised  the  office 
and  title  of  captain-general  and  as  such  they  commanded  the 
military  and  naval  forces  of  their  colonies,  inadequate  as 
these  forces  sometimes  were.  During  the  first  two  hundred 
years  governors  and  viceroys  were  largely  selected  on  the  basis 
of  their  past  military  exploits  on  the  continent  or  in  America. 
The  administrations  of  the  different  Philippine  governors  of 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  were  characterized 
rather  by  their  devotion  to  military  affairs  than  by  economic 
improvements  or  administrative  efficiency.  The  supervision  of 
judicial  and  governmental  affairs  was  thus  left  for  long  periods 
in  the  hands  of  other  officials  and  authorities,  to  be  reclaimed 
or  fought  over  by  the  governors  when  their  time  was  not  taken 
up  by  military  conquests. 

It  is  practically  agreed  among  all  authorities  who  have  writ- 


The   Governor's  Military  Prerogative  227 

ten  on  the  Philippines  that  the  leading  consideration  and 
necessity  of  the  government  .during  two  hundred  years  was 
military  defense.  These  writers  comprise  officials  who  saw 
service  there  and  commentators  who  visited  the  Islands  and 
studied  the  government.  In  their  recommendations  and  com 
ments  they  unite  in  urging  that  the  defense  of  the  Islands 
should  not  be  neglected;  that  the  governor  should  be  given 
adequate  forces  with  sufficient  jurisdiction  over  them  and  over 
the  other  elements  of  the  colony  to  defend  it  successfully  from 
invasion  or  insurrection. 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  government  throughout  the  history 
of  the  Islands  to  conserve  and  keep  intact  the  governor's  mili 
tary  jurisdiction.  We  have  noted  in  an  earlier  chapter  that 
one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  suppression  of  the  audiencia  in 
1589  was  that  it  interfered  too  extensively  with  the  military 
jurisdiction  of  the  governor.  During  the  decade  following  the 
extinction  of  the  tribunal,  the  military  governors  were  given  al 
most  unlimited  powers,  until  their  abuses  led  to  the  re-estab 
lishment  of  the  tribunal  to  guard  against  these  excesses.  We 
shall  see  in  the  following  chapter  that  the  limitations  placed 
upon  them  by  the  audiencia  were  always  a  source  of  complaint 
by  the  various  governors.  Governor  Acufia  went  so  far  as  to 
recommend  the  suppression  of  the  tribunal  because  the  needs 
of  the  colony  were  military  and  had  to  be  met  by  the  firm  ac 
tion  of  a  soldier,  without  the  interference  of  a  body  of  magis 
trates.1  Similar  recommendations  were  made  by  a  majority  of 


i  Acufia  to  Felipe  III,  July  15,  1604,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIII, 
235.  Acufia  stated  that  the  soldiers  and  military  officials  were  "dis 
contented  and  grieved  at  the  ill-treatment  which  the  said  auditors 
accord  them;  and  at  seeing  that  they  are  hindered  by  them,  an 
auditor  commanding  at  his  will  the  arrest  of  a  captain,  official,  or 
soldier,  without  cause  or  reason,  and  interfering  in  all  the  details- 
of  service — even  going  so  far  as  to  inspect  their  quarters,  and  send 
them  to  the  public  prison,  for  very  trivial  affairs,  against  all  military 
precedents."  The  governor  said  that  when  affairs  went  on  in  a 
peaceful  and  orderly  way,  it  was  because  the  oidores  were  not  in 
terfering  with  them.  He  stated  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  all  right- 


228          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

the  succeeding  governors,  but  more  especially  by  Fajardo,  Cor- 
cuera,  Vargas,  Arandia,  and  even  by  Anda  who  had  risen  from 
the  post  of  oidor  to  that  of  governor  and  military  commander.2 

The  conviction  that  the  government  should  be  pre-eminently 
military  was  not  held  by  governors  alone.  Fernando  de  los 
Rios  Coronel,  procurator  of  the  Philippines  at  the  Court  of 
Madrid  in  1597,  urged  that  the  government  should  be  of  a 
military  character  and  that  the  practice  of  sending  soldiers  to 
govern  the  Islands  should  be  continued.3  This  opinion  was  also 
advanced  by  Fray  Alonso  Sanchez,  procurator  of  the  Islands 
at  Madrid  in  1589,  and  the  emissary  whose  arguments  were 
chiefly  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  suppression  of  the 
audiencia.*  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  the  most  efficient  fiscal 
that  the  Islands  ever  had,  and  afterwards  councillor  of  the 
Indies,  recognized  the  military  attributes  of  the  governor's 
position.  He  urged  a  separation  of  the  spheres  of  the  gov 
ernor  and  the  audiencia,  recommending  that  the  former  should 
attend  solely  to  war  and  government,  while  the  latter  should 
confine  itself  to  matters  of  justice.5 

This  opinion  was  shared  by  Juan  Jose  Delgado,  the  able 
Jesuit  historian,  who  expressed  the  conviction  that  the  "islands 
need  disinterested  military  governors,  not  merchants;  and  men 
of  resolution  and  character,  not  students,  who  are  more  fit  to 
govern  monasteries  than  communities  of  heroes."6  Delgado  re 
commended  that  governors  of  the  Philippines  should  be  picked 


thinking  men  that  soldiers  were  of  more  use  in  the  colony  than 
judges  (ibid.,  237). 

2  The  terms  of  these  governors  were  as  follows:  Pajardo,  1618- 
1624;  Corcuera,  1635-1644;  Vargas,  1678-1684;  Arandia,  1754-1759; 
Anda,  1762-1764,  1770-1776. 

s  Rios  Coronel  to  the  King,  June  27,  1597,  A.  I.,  67-6-19;  see 
also  Bourne,  "Historical  introduction,"  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  I, 
53,  note. 

4  These  arguments  are  noted  in  detail  in  Chapter  II  of  this 
volume. 

.-'Viana  to  Carlos  III,  May  1,  1767,  Blair  and  Robertson,  L,  126-135. 

e  Delgado,  212-215,  reproduced  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVII, 
316. 


Importance  of  Military  Defense  229 

men,  selected  for  their  military  qualities.  The  distance  and  isola 
tion  of  the  colony  and  its  proximity  to  the  great  empires  of  China 
and  Japan  made  defense  the  first  requisite.  Delgado  believed 
that  a  soldier  would  be  less  amenable  to  bribes  and  that  commer 
cial  ventures  would  be  less  attractive  to  him.7  He  recommended 
that  governors  should  be  absolute  in  affairs  of  government  and 
war  and  that  all  departments  and  officials  of  the  government 
should  be  subject  to  him. 

While  most  of  the  independent  commentators  writing  on 
the  subject  seem  to  have  conceived  of  the  duties  of  the  governor 
as  savoring  more  of  war  than  of  peace,  we  may  note  that 
Manuel  Bernaldez  Pizarro,  for  many  years  a  resident  and  offi 
cial  in  the  Philippines,  writing  in  1827,  urged  that  the  gov 
ernors  there  should  be  efficient  administrators  rather  than  sol 
diers.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  political  con 
ditions  in  the  Philippines  during  his  period  \vere  widely 
different  from  those  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen 
turies  when  the  Islands  were  constantly  exposed  to  the  attack 
of  outside  enemies  and  liable  to  insurrections  within.  The 
chief  problems  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  administrative, 
rather  than  military.  He  pointed  out  that  governors  had 
already  exhibited  too  much  of  the  militant  spirit  in  dealing 
with  the  problems  of  government,  ''not  heeding  the  opinions 
and  customs  of  the  country,  but  depending  on  the  force  of 
arms/'  or  their  asesores.8  This  had  the  effect  of  causing  dis 
sensions  between  the  governor  and  audiencia,  and  the  resultant 
discord  had  furnished  a  very  bad  example  for  the  natives  and 
residents  of  the  colony. 

The  characteristic   tendency  throughout   the   history .  of  the 


"  "But,"  he  continued,  "if  a  man  come  to  these  islands  with  the 
intention  of  escaping  his  natural  poverty  by  humoring  the  rich  and 
powerful,  and  even  obeying  them,  the  wrongs  accruing  to  the  com 
munity  are  incredible"  (ibid.,  317). 

s  Reforms  in  Filipinas,  April  26,  1827,  by  Manuel  Bernaldez 
Pizarro,  Blair  and  Robertson,  LI,  219;  see  213-218. 


230          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

Islands  to  lay  stress  on  the  military  side  of  the  governor's 
position  was  commented  on  by  Montero  y  Vidal,  the  modern 
historian  of  the  Philippines,  in  the  following  terms : 

The  authority  of  the  governor-general  is  complete,  and  so  great  a 
number  of  attributes  conferred  on  one  functionary,  incompetent,  as  a 
general  rule,  for  everything  outside  of  military  affairs,  is  certainly 
prejudicial  to  the  right  exercise  of  his  duty;  .  .  .  since  1822  the 
government  has  always  devolved  upon  an  official;  a  general,  and  in 
the  case  of  his  death,  a  segundo  oo&o,  and,  in  case  of  the  death  of  the 
latter,  a  commandant  of  the  naval  station. o 

The  preservation  of  the  peace  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
defense  of  the  Islands  was  the  chief 'responsibility  and  the  most 
important  duty  of  the  governor  and  captain-general.  Although 
the  audiencia  was  ordered  to  do  all  that  it  could  to  assist, 
nevertheless  the  tribunal  was  strictly  forbidden  to  restrict  or 
hinder  the  governor  in  the  execution  of  his  military  duties.10 
The  governor's  position  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  king's 
forces,  and  his  pre-eminence  in  military  affairs,  were  generally 
recognized. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  early  laws  conferred 
exclusive  military  powers  on  the  governor,  a  glance  at  three  hun 
dred  years  of  Spanish  colonial  history  will  show  that  the  audi- 
encias  participated  in  these  matters  in  two  different  ways.  In 
fact,  an  analysis  of  the  military  jurisdiction  shows  the  presence 
and  the  exercise,  in  general,  of  two  kinds  of  activity.  These 
consisted,  first,  of  a  special  judicial  system  for  the  trial  of 
persons  under  military  law  and  distinct  from  the  civil  jurisdic 
tion,  and  second,  of  the  control  and  disposition  of  the  military 
forces  of  the  Islands,  and  their  utilization  for  defense.  One, 


9  Montero   y   Vidal,   Archiplelago   Filipino,   162-168.      "The    Spanish 
regime    in    Filipinas    lasted    333    years.  .  .  .  During    that    time    there 
were  97  governors — not  counting  some  twenty  who  served  for  less  than 
one  year  each,  mostly  ad  interim,  and  the  average  length  of  their  terms 
of  office  was  a  little  less  than  three  and  one-half  years,  a  fact  which  is 
an   important   element   in   the   administrative  history   of  the   islands" 
(Blair  and  Robertson,  L,  74,  note  46). 

10  Recopilacion,  3-3-3. 


Military  Tribunals  231 

therefore,  was  judicial,  the  other  was  administrative,  but  both 
of  these  forces  of  activity  were  within  the  military  sphere. 
The  problem  of  this  chapter,  therefore,  consists  in  determining 
the  conditions,  circumstances,  and  extent  of  the  audiencia's 
participation  in  military  affairs,  and  of  its  relation  to  the 
authority  and  jurisdiction  of  the  governor  and  captain-general. 

As  commander-in-chief,  the  governor  was  at  the  head  of  a 
special  judicial  system  for  the  trial  of  soldiers  under  the  mili 
tary  law.  This  judicial  system  was  independent  of  the  autli- 
encia,  and  the  latter  body,  during  the  greater  part  of  the  his 
tory  of  the  Islands,  was  denied  jurisdiction  in  these  cases,  even 
on  appeal.11  We  have  already  noted,  however,  the  tendency  of 
the  law  to  excuse  these  busy  executives  from  direct  participation 
in  ordinary  judicial  activities.  Notwithstanding  the  governor's 
status  in  the  above-mentioned  particular,  he  seldom  intervened 
personally  in  the  trial  of  such  cases.  His  position  with  re 
gard  to  the  military  jurisdiction  was  similar  to  his  relation 
with  the  audiencia,  of  which  he  was  president,  but  over  which 
he  seldom  presided. 

The  actual  trial  of  the  criminal  cases  of  soldiers  was  con 
ducted  in  first  instance  by  military  tribunals  and  magistrates. 
Most  prominent  among  the  latter  were  the  castellan  and  the 
maestre  de  campo.  The  captains,  themselves,  had  certain  judi 
cial  authority  within  their  companies.12  Appeals  were  made 
from  these  military  judges  of  first  instance  to  the  captain- 
general.  If  there  had  been  notorious  injustice  or  a  grave  in 
fraction  of  the  law  in  the  trial  of  a  case  of  first  instance,  it 
was  the  governor's  duty  either  to  refer  the  case  to  some  other 
magistrate  than  to  the  one  who  originally  tried  it,  or  to  a 
special  judicial  tribunal.  An  oidor  might  be  designated  to 
serve  in  this  tribunal.  When  the  magistrates  served  in  this 


11  Ibid.,  3-11-1  to  3. 

7(/-.,  3-11-1,  2,  3  to  10;   3-10-3,  11;  5-10-15. 


232          Audicncia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

capacity  they  were  responsible  entirely  to  the  governor  and 
were  not  identified  with  the  audiencia.  Oidores  frequently  ob 
jected  to  this  service,  but  the  governor  was  usually  able  to 
enforce  these  demands,  which  were  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
and  approved  by  the  home  government. 

The  captain-general  exercised  the  pardoning  power.  Under 
some  circumstances  cases  might  be  appealed  to  Spain,  but  in 
these  suits,  most  of  which  involved  personal  crimes  and  mis 
demeanors,  the  decision  of  the  captain-general  or  the  local 
military  tribunal  was  usually  final,  if  for  no  other  reason  than 
the  fact  that  the  soldiers  in  Manila  lacked  the  means  to  carry 
their  cases  further.  Those  cases  which  were  appealed  usually 
involved  principles  of  law  desirable  to  be  tested  by  reference  to 
a  higher  tribunal.  The  junta  dc  gucrra  de  Indicts  received  all 
appeals  from  the  military  officials  of  the  colonies  and  solved 
all  questions  of  a  judicial  or  administrative  character  that  were 
carried  to  it. 

The  junta  de  gucrra  consisted  of  four  ministers  of  the  Su 
preme  Council  of  War  who  were  designated  to  sit  with  an  equal 
number  of  ministers  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.13  It  was,  in 
fact,  the  executive  committee  and  at  the  same  time  the  special 
tribunal  of  military  affairs  for  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  It 
passed  upon  such  military  questions  as  were  nominally  referred 
to  it  by  the  president  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  although 
these  cases  automatically  came  to  this  junta  without  the  inter 
vention  of  the  president  of  the  Council.  It  had  jurisdiction 
over  appeals  in  cases  affecting  soldiers  tried  in  first  or  second 
instance  in  the  colonies,  over  the  administrative  matters  of 
armament  and  defense :  the  equipment  of  fleets  and  military 
operations,  garrisons,  military  supplies,  and  munitions.  It  also 
tried  appeals  from  the  tribunal  of  the  Casa  de  Contrataciou, 


2-2-72,  74,   77;    Consult®  de  18  de  Fcbrero   tie    /6'73   sobre 
atribucioncs  de  la  Junta  dc  Gucrra  dc  Indias,  A.  I.,  141-5-8. 


Auditores  dc  Gucrra:   Procedure  233 

and,  in  fact,  it  exercised  general  supervision  over  that  institu 
tion  in  its  various  activities. 

This  was  the  machinery  which  existed  for  the  adjudication 
of  military  cases  during  the  greater  part  of  the  history  of  the 
Islands,  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  officiating  as  auditores 
de  gucrra  when  designated  by  the  governor.14  The  royal  decree 
of  January  30,  1855,  made  a  radical  reform  in  this  particular, 
adding  two  new  magistrates,  an  auditor  de  guerra  and  an  audi 
tor  dc  marina  and  to  some  extent  relieving  the  ministers  of  the 
audieucia.  These  magistrates  were  appointed  by  the  Minister 
of  War  and  had  original  and  secondary  jurisdiction  over  cases 
involving  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the  fleet.  These  new  magis 
trates  served  as  ministers  of  the  audiencia  when  their  special 
duties  permitted,  and  they  were  ordered  to  consult  with  the 
governor  from  time  to  time  in  regard  to  matters  pertaining  to 
their  respective  fields.  Though  the  audiencia  was  forbidden  to 
concern  itself  with  cases  which  belonged  to  the  military  juris 
diction,  the  regent  and  two  magistrates  of  the  tribunal,  acting 
with  the  auditor  de  guerra  or  the  auditor  de  marina,  could  re 
solve  themselves  into  a  special  court  for  the  trial  in  second 
instance  of  cases  pertaining  to  the  respective  fields  of  the  last 
two  officials.15 

Two  or  three  cases  may  be  described  here  which  illustrate 
the  method  of  procedure  in  the  trial  of  military  cases  by  the 
tribunals.  On  January  22,  1787,  a  royal  order  was  issued  on 
the  recommendation  of  the  junta  de  gucrra  de  Indias,  approv 
ing  of  a  sentence  of  death  pronounced  upon  a  soldier  in  the 
Philippines  four  years  before.  This  soldier  had  been  sentenced 
in  first  instance  by  the  castellan.  The  captain-general,  on  ap- 


i-i  Auditor  de  guerra,  "the  juez  letrado,  who  has  jurisdiction  in 
first  instance  over  cases  under  the  military  law,  subordinate  to  the 
captain  or  commandant-general  of  an  army  or  province"  (Escriche, 
Diccionario,  I,  369). 

ir>  Royal  order  of  January  30,  1855,  Coleccion  legislativa  de 
Espana,  LXIV,  105-147. 


234          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

peal,  affirmed  the  sentence,  and  the  junta,  de  guerra  approved 
the  proceedings  when  the  case  was  appealed  a  second  time.16 
Another  case,  and  one  which  illustrates  the  slowness  of  the  pro 
ceedings  of  this  junta,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  its  jurisdiction, 
was  that  of  a  soldier  who  had  set  fire  to  a  powrder  magazine, 
causing  it  to  explode,  thereby  killing  several  persons.  The 
culprit  was  sentenced  by  the  consejo  ordinario  de  guerra,  a  sort 
of  local  military  and  strategic  committee,  composed  of  local 
military  officers  (in  this  case  a  kind  of  court-martial),17  but 
Governor  Basco  y  Vargas,  upon  the  advice  of  his  ascsor,  sus 
pended  sentence,  directing  the  case  to  the  junta  de  guerra. 
Nothing  was  done,  however,  and  on  December  10,  1788,  Gov 
ernor  Marquina,  successor  to  Basco  y  Vargas,  wrote  to  the 
president  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  calling  attention  to  the 
fact  that  this  soldier  had  been  in  prison  for  six  years  awaiting 
the  action  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.18  The  matter  was  then 
referred  to  the  junta  and  the  sentence  was  approved  by  that 
tribunal. 

As  in  all  other  departments  and  activities  of  government, 
so  in  this,  there  were  many  opportunities  for  conflict  between 
the  audiencia  and  the  governor  as  to  authority  over  cases 
which  by  their  nature  bordered  on  the  sphere  of  both  the  civil 


is  Royal  order  of  January  22,  1787,  A.  I.,  107-5-16. 

IT  That  the  consejo  de  guerra  was  something  more  than  a  (tribunal 
of)  courtmartial  and  that  it  actually  participated  in  the  adminis 
tration  of  military  affairs  may  be  seen  in  the  ccdula,  of  June  22, 
1599,  which  authorized  the  local  consejo  to  act  with  the  audiencia 
and  cabildo  in  restraining  the  military  officials  in  the  provinces 
from  imposing  undue  exactions  on  the  natives,  assessing  them  too 
heavily  or  confiscating  their  property  in  the  equipment  of  military 
forces  in  time  of  threatened  invasion  (Rccopilacion,  3-4-3). 

is  On  March  12,  1781,  Governor  Basco  y  Vargas  complained  to  the 
king  against  the  inconvenience  of  having  to  appeal  the  decisions 
of  the  local  council  of  war  to  the  Supreme  Council  in  Madrid.  This 
was  the  practice  followed  in  other  parts,  he  said,  but  it  was  un 
desirable  in  the  Philippines  on  account  of  the  isolation  and  the 
distance.  He  recommended  instead  that  these  cases  should  be  ap 
pealed  to  a  board  consisting  of  the  governor  and  two  asesores — one 
his  own,  and  the  other  an  oidor  to  be  designated  by  him.  This 
recommendation  was  not  accepted  (A.  I.,  106-1-18). 


Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction  235 

and  military  jurisdictions.  The  governor  who  had  the  power 
to  assign  cases  to  whatever  tribunal  he  chose,  often  took  ad 
vantage  of  his  position  to  bring  the  trial  of  civil  cases  within 
his  own  military  sphere.  Among  these  were  suits  involving 
the  militiamen.  These  were  subject  to  the  military  jurisdiction 
when  they  were  under  arms,  and  at  other  times,  being  civilians, 
they  were  subject  to  the  civil  authorities.19  An  instance  of  a 
case  of  this  kind  occurred  in  1800.  A  militiaman,  Josef  Ruy, 
had  killed  an  Indian,  and  the  audiencia,  on  the  basis  of  its 
authority  over  Indians,  had  sentenced  the  culprit  to  death. 
The  governor,  after  sentence  was  passed,  reopened  the  case 
on  the  ground  that  as  a  member  of  the  militia,  Ruy  was 
subject  to  the  military  and  not  to  the  civil  jurisdiction,  al 
though  the  militia  was  not  at  that  time  in  active  service. 
The  judgment,  of  the  audiencia  was  therefore  suspended. 
The  case,  meanwhile,  had  been  appealed  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies,  and  that  tribunal  had  approved  the  sentence  of 
the  audiencia,  apparently  without  taking  note  of  the  fact 
that  the  case  involved  the  military  jurisdiction.  A  short  time 
afterward  the  Council  received  a  second  report  from  the  audi 
encia,  stating  that  jurisdiction  over  the  case  had  been  •  sur 
rendered  to  the  governor  on  account  of  its  military  character. 
This  procedure  was  accordingly  approved  by  the  Council.  Soon 
after,  report  came  of  the  receipt  by  the  audiencia  of  the 
former  judgment  of  the  Council,  relative  to  the  action  first 
taken  by  the  audiencia,  with  the  information  that  since  the  will 
of  the  Council  was  known,  the  governor  had  surrendered  the 
prisoner  again  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia.  Disgusted 
at  the  contradiction  and  cross-purposes  at  which  the  authorities 
in  the  Islands  Avere  working,  the  king  decreed  on  March  27, 
1802,  that  cases  involving  Indians  should  be  tried  in  the 
audiencia,  but  that  this  poor  wretch  had  been  tried  and  re- 


19  Audiencia  to  Valdez,  December  11,  1788,  A.  I.,  107-5-16. 


236          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

tried,  condemned  and  condemned  over  again  so  often  that  he 
had  already  expatiated  his  crime.  He  was  accordingly  author 
ized  to  go  free.20 

The  king  administered  a  severe  reprimand  to  the  governor 
and  oidores  on  this  occasion  for  their  insistence  on  these  small 
points  of  personal  dignity  in  which  the  real  purpose  of  the  law 
was  entirely  overlooked  in  the  pompous  insistence  of  these 
officials  on  what  they  imagined  to  be  their  own  particular 
rights.  The  case  just  alluded  to  began  in  1792,  and  was  car 
ried  through  ten  years  of  petty  strife.  The  blame  for  this 
cannot  be  ascribed  entirely  to  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia, 
or  to  the  governor,  who  had  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  law 
as  he  interpreted  it.  The  real  fault  lay  in  the  failure  of  the 
Spanish  governmental  system  to  place  implicit  confidence  in 
the  judgment  and  ability  of  its  servants.  Considering  the  final 
ends  of  justice,  it  made  little  difference  whether  sentence  was 
pronounced  upon  this  individual  by  the  governor  as  military 
commander,  or  as  president  of  the  audiencia.  It  is  true  that 
the  authorities  might  have  compromised  on  many  occasions ; 
indeed,  from  the  viewpoint  of  history  it  may  be  said  that  they 
should  have  done  so,  instead  of  so  often  wasting  their  energies 
on  these  petty  battles.  These  incessant  disputes  were  en 
couraged  and  facilitated  by  the  ease  with  which  appeals  could 
be  made  to  Spain,  thus  hindering  the  immediate  execution  of 
decisions.  The  Council  of  the  Indies  interfered  in  details 
which  should  have  been  left  entirely  to  the  colonial  authorities. 
This  interference  encouraged  appeal,  and  matters  of  no  relative 
importance  to  Spain's  colonial  empire  frequently  occupied  a 
large  share  of  the  attention  of  the  sovereign  tribunal.  Colonial 
officials  were  not  entrusted  with  the  authority  and  responsi 
bility  which  they  should  have  had,  and  the  central  government 


20  Royal  order  of  March  27,  1802,  A.  I.,  107-5-16. 


Services  of  the  Magistrates  23 1 

wasted  its  time  attending  to  small  affairs  which  should  have 
been  concluded  by  subordinates  in  the  colonies. 

The  governor  frequently  claimed  jurisdiction  over  cases 
involving  retired  soldiers  on  the  grounds  that  they  had  once 
been  under  the  fuero  militar.  He  also  claimed  jurisdiction  in 
suits  affecting  widows  of  soldiers,  all  of  which,  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  December  11,  1788,  should  have  been  tried  by 
the  audieiicia.21  Another  abuse  frequently  perpetrated  by  the 
governor  was  the  assumption  of  jurisdiction  over  suits  for  the 
payment  by  military  officials  of  bonds  which  they  had  assumed 
for  defaulted  civil  officials.22  In  doing  this  he  was  encroaching 
on  the  rights  of  the  o fie  idles  rcales,  and  these  were  always  sup 
ported  by  the  audiencia  in  the  contentions  which  arose  over 
this  question.  Cases  involving  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between 
the  civil  and  military  authorities  were  appealed  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies,  and  there,  after  considerable  delay,  the  proper 
sphere  of  authority  was  always  determined. 

While  the  audiencia  as  a  tribunal  was  forbidden  jurisdic 
tion  in  the  trial  of  cases  involving  war,  we  have  already  shown 
that  the  governor  exercised  the  right  of  designating  aidores  to 
try  cases  of  this  nature  on  second  appeal.  The  power  of  en 
forcing  this  right  depended  entirely  on  the  governor.  Fre 
quently  the  efforts  of  the  governor  along  these  lines  were 
attended  with  much  difficulty  as  were  those  of  Governor  Mar- 
quina  in  1789  when  he  sought  to  designate  an  oidor  to  assist  in 
the  trial  of  Antonio  Callejo,  naval  artilleryman  on  a  frigate  of 
war.  The  case  had  first  been  tried  before  the  proper  military 
judge,  but  it  was  referred  on  appeal  to  a  tribunal  of  which  an 
alcalde  ordinario  of  the  city  was  a  member.  The  governor 
designated  Oidor  Yuguanzo  to  act  as  a  member  of  this  tribunal 
for  the  trial  of  the  case  of  Callejo  on  review.  The  magistrate 


^i  Case  of  Don   Diego   Salvatierra,   November   20,   1792,   A.    I.,   105- 
2-10. 

21  Case  of  Don  Josef  de  Aviles,  November  2,  1792,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 


238          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

begged  to  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  all  his  time  was 
occupied  with  the  trial  of  civil  cases  in  the  audiencia.  The. 
governor  called  on  all  the  other  oidores  successively,  and  all 
declined  to  act.  At  last  he  peremptorily  ordered  Yuguarizo  to 
serve,  telling  him  that  if  he  objected  he  might  carry  the  matter 
to  the  king  in  the  regular  way,  which,  according  to  the  laws 
of  the  Indies,  was  to  comply  wTith  the  governor's  demands,  un 
der  protest,  while  appealing  the  question  of  disagreement  to 
the  Council  of  the  Indies.23  This  was  accordingly  done,  the 
magistrate  basing  his  claim  to  exemption  on  the  law  which  pro 
hibited  the  governor  from  sending  oidores  on  commissions  out 
side  the  audiencia.24  The  governor  at  the  same  time  filed  a 
memorial  which  forestalled  all  the  arguments  of  the  oidor.23 
He  stated  that  the  real  cause  of  the  disinclination  of  the  magis 
trates  of  the  audiencia  to  serve  as  audit  ores  d-e  guerra  was  their 
indolence,  and  not  the  pressure  of  their  excessive  duties.  It 
was  contrary  to  their  ideas  of  dignity  to  be  associated  with 
the  acting  auditor  de  guerra,  who  was  not  a  letrado,  and  it 
was  therefore  considered  a  sacrifice  of  their  own  personal 
dignity.  The  governor  stated  that  no  argument  could  justify 
such  an  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  oidores.  The  inconsistency 
of  their  position  was  further  shown,  he  alleged,  by  the  fact 
that  they  had  served  regularly  on  the  tribunal  of  appeals  of 
the  consulado,  in  company  with  two  merchants  who  were  not 


23  Recopilacion,   2-16-12;    2-15-36. 

24  Ibid. ,   2-16-11. 

2">  The  memorial  which  the  governor  sent  in  answer  to  the  argu 
ments  of  the  oidor  was  an  interesting  exposition  of  his  opinion  of 
the  audiencia.  He  said  that  the  lack  of  time  alleged  by  the  oidor 
was  a  mere  pretense,  as  the  regular  sessions  of  the  audiencia  did 
not  exceed  three  hours  a  day.  The  governor  stated  that  none  of  the 
oidores  were  occupied  more  than  that  length  of  time,  excepting 
those  who  had  special  conservatorships  of  cockpits,  tobacco,  cards, 
betel,  and  wine.  The  suits  of  Spaniards  and  Indians  were  few,  he 
alleged,  since  most  of  the  questions  involving  commerce  were  tried 
in  the  tribunal  of  the  consulado  (Governor  Marquina  to  the  super 
intendent-general,  July  10,  1789,  A.  I.,  107-5-18);  see  Chapter  III, 
note  88. 


Services  of  the  Magistrates  239 

even  lawyers.  Hence  there  could  be  no  reason  for  their  refusal 
to  serve  with  an  alcalde  ordinario. 

The  governor  based  his  right  to  call  upon  the  regular  magis 
trates  for  this  service  on  that  section  of  the  laws  of  the  Indies 
applying  to  Espafiola,  Nuevo  Reino,  and  Tierra  Firme,  which 
declared  that  jurisdiction  over  cases  affecting  soldiers  belonged 
to  the  captain-general  with  inhibition  of  the  audiencia,  and 
that  soldiers,  during  the  time  they  were  under  arms,  should 
not  be  tried  on  criminal  charges.26  The  governor,  according  to 
this  law,  might  call  upon  a  magistrate  to  serve  as  special 
auditor  de  guerra  for  the  determination  of  cases  in  second 
instance.  Finally,  by  April  20,  1784,  the  king  had  extended 
this  rule  to  all  other  colonies.27  Although  we  have  no  record  of 
the  reply  of  the  tribunal  in  Spain,  the  strength  of  the  gov 
ernor's  position  could  not  well  be  questioned,  especially  since 
he  was  resting  his  case  on  a  law  made  in  1784,  which  was 
completely  up-to-date,  while  the  magistrate's  contention  was 
based  011  one  promulgated  in  1609. 2S 

Aside  from  the  duty  of  the  oid-ores  to  try  military  cases 
wrhen  commissioned  by  the  governor  to  do  so,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  tribunal  itself  exercised  much  more  extensive  authority 
in  the  actual  administration  of  military  affairs.  Two  factors 
may  be  said  to  have  contributed  to  this.  One  was  the  fact 
that  the  audiencia  was  frequently  consulted  by  the  king  or 
governor  in  regard  to  the  defense  of  the  colony.  The  other 
may  be  seen  in  the  actual  assumption  of  the  government  at 
various  times  by  the  audiencia,  and  the  successful  defense  of 
the  Islands  by  the  military  forces  under  the  leadership  of  the 
oidores.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  governor's  recog 
nized  sphere  of  action  was  military,  and  in  spite  of  the  re- 


26  Recopilacion,    3-11-2. 

27  Ibid.,  note  2. 

28  See    citation    of   the    cedilla   of    January    24,    1773,    applicable    to 
Peru,   wherein  an   oidor  was   permanently   charged   with   the   duty   of 
serving  as  auditor  de  guerra   (ibid.). 


2-40          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

peated  prohibitions  against  the  interference  of  the  tribunal  in 
these  matters,  the  audiencia  received  considerable  official  en 
couragement  and  authorization  to  interest  itself  in  military 
affairs. 

As  the  problems  of  general  administration  were  too  serious 
for  the  solution  of  one  man  without  advisors,  so  the  governor 
also  found  it  frequently  undesirable  to  assume  sole  responsi 
bility  for  military  affairs.  The  audiencia  shared  the  acucrdo 
power  in  these  matters  to  a  lesser  degree  than  it  did  in  gov 
ernment.  The  hostility  of  the  Japanese  in  the  early  years, 
the  fear  of  the  Chinese,  the  danger  of  native  outbreaks,  the 
raids  of  the  Moro  pirates,  and  the  incursions  of  the  Portu 
guese,  Dutch,  and  English  aroused  the  fears  of  the  common 
wealth  to  such  an  extent  that  defense  was  felt  to  be  a  matter 
of  common  concern.  The  governor,  upon  whom  legally  rested 
the  obligations  and  responsibilities  of  defense,  was  glad  to 
share  these  duties  with  any  authority  that  could  be  of  as 
sistance.  The  history  of  the  Philippines  is  replete  with  in 
stances  in  which  the  audiencia  either  gave  counsel  in  matters 
pertaining  to  defense,  or  took  an  active  part  in  resistance. 
There  were  even  occasions  on  which  it  advocated  offensive 
warfare.29 

We  have  seen  in  an  earlier  chapter  that  the  audiencia  mani 
fested  a  keen  interest  in  military  affairs  immediately  upon 
its  establishment.  In  the  chapter  on  the  establishment  of  the 
tribunal  we  noted  the  memorials  of  individual  oidores.  and  of 
the  audiencia  as  a  tribunal,  advising  the  governor  and  the 
king  as  to  the  necessity  of  conquering  the  Moros,  and  on  the 
best  way  of  putting  down  insurrections  in  the  Islands.  The 
question  of  defense  against  the  Portuguese  and  the  Dutch  was 


20  Morga  states  that  after  the  audiencia  was  established  in  May, 
1584,  "they  (the  oidores1)  began  to  attend  to  the  affairs  both  of 
justice  and  of  war  and  government"  (Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Rob 
ertson,  XV,  60). 


Defense  241 

also  discussed  in  the  letters  of  the  oidorcs.  In  some  cases  their 
advice  was  considered,  on  other  occasions  the  governor  com 
plained  against  them  for  exceeding  their  jurisdiction.  One  of 
the  most  noteworthy  instances  of  the  recognized  intervention 
of  the  oidores  in  military  matters  was  on  April  19,  1586, 
when  a  council,  called  together  by  Governor  Sande  and  consist 
ing  of  the  governor,  the  bishop,  and  the  oidorcs.,  considered  the 
immediate  occupation  of  China.  This  was  urged  by  Governor 
Sande,  but  he  was  overruled  by  the  moderate  counsels  of  the 
bishop  and  magistrates.30 

No  better  illustration  of  the  willingness  of  the  governor 
to  share  his  military  responsibilities  can  be  given  than  the 
reliance  of  Governor  Dasmarinas  on  the  religious  authorities 
for  advice  in  military  affairs,  after  the  suppression  of  the 
audiencia  in  1589.31  He  consulted  with  them  on  ways  and 
means  of  defending  the  colony  against  the  Japanese,  whose 
threatening  attitude  during  his  administration  rendered  pre 
carious  the  continuance  of  Spanish  power  in  the  Islands.  On 
one  occasion  he  consulted  the  religious  orders  as  to  the  advisa 
bility  of  expelling  all  Japanese  and  Chinese  traders  from 


so  Memorial  of  April  19,  1586,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VI,  197-233.  The 
purpose  of  the  proposed  expedition  was  declared  to  be  to  "forestall  the 
danger  that  the  French  and  English,  and  other  heretics  and  northern 
nations,  will  discover  and  navigate  that  strait  which  certainly  lies  op 
posite  those  regions — that  of  Labrador."  A  note  suggests  that  this 
probably  referred  to  the  St.  Lawrence  River.  Delgado  says  that  Gov 
ernor  Sande  called  this  council  together  on  April  9,  1586,  evidently 
meaning  Santiago  de  Vera,  as  the  latter  became  governor  in  1584,  and 
Sande  left  the  Islands  in  1580.  De  Vera's  signature  is  affixed  to  this 
petition.  Other  letters  of  special  importance,  from  the  audiencia  or 
individual  oidores  to  the  court,  entirely  or  in  part  on  military  affairs, 
written  during  this  period,  may  be  noted  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  VI, 
56-65,  157-233,  254-264,  265-274,  311-321,  XVII,  251-280,  and  through 
out  this  series  from  Volumes  VI  to  XXXV  (1584-1650)  especially.  The 
general  subject  is  covered  in  A.  I.,  67-6-6  to  26. 

si  Luzon  Menaced,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VIII,  284-297.  We  shall 
see,  in  the  next  chapter,  that  Governor  Bustamante,  on  a  similar  occa 
sion,  asked  for  the  written  advice  of  the  various  ecclesiastical  authori 
ties  and  corporations  on  the  question  of  whether  he  had  a  right  to 
remove  and  appoint  oidores  without  express  royal  authorization. 


242          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

Manila.  The  accumulation  of  provisions  against  a  possible 
siege,  the  seizure  of  the  persons  and  property  of  all  Japanese 
residents,  the  establishment  of  a  place  of  refuge  for  women, 
children,  and  sick  persons  in  case  of  invasion,  and  the  appro 
priation  of  the  property  of  the  natives  as  a  pledge  of  their 
good  behavior  in  the  event  of  hostilities,  were  measures  pro 
posed  by  the  governor  to  the  religious  for  their  consideration. 
Dasrnarinas,  on  another  occasion,  asked  the  advice  of  the 
Augustinians,  Dominicans,  and  Jesuits  as  to  the  best  manner  of 
dealing  with  an  insurrection  in  Zambales,  and  the  religious 
authorities,  after  quoting  scholars,  saints,  and  theologians, 
made  lengthy  recommendations.32  These  facts  make  clear  the 
unwillingness  of  this  governor  to  take  the  initiative  in  affairs 
pertaining  to  his  own  special  province.  He  was  content  to  ask 
and  receive  the  advice  of  priests,  monks,  and  magistrates,  on 
military  affairs.  He  was  willing  to  seek  the  counsel  of  any 
and  all  available  persons  or  authorities  who  could  or  would 
advise  him.  It  is,  of  course,  clear  that  the  audiencia,  when  in 
existence,  would  be  preferred  as  a  source  of  advice  and  counsel 
to  a  community  of  religious. 

Not  only  did  the  governor  set  a  precedent  of  seeking  the 
advice  of  the  audiencia  during  this  early  period,  but  the  king 
often  sought  the  opinion  of  the  magistrates  in  regard  to  mili 
tary  affairs.  Various  matters  were  referred  by  the  sovereign 
to  the  oidores  at  different  times:  questions  involving  the 
building  of  walls  and  fortifications  of  Manila,  and  the  number 
and  size  of  cannon  needed  for  the  proper  equipment  of  the 
latter;  the  audiencia  was  asked  whether  it  would  be  better 
to  bring  gunpowder  from  New  Spain  or  to  manufacture  it 
.in  the  Islands;  the  magistrates  were  required  on  several  oc 
casions  to  furnish  information  as  to  the  number  of  men 
needed  for  the  defense  of  the  Islands,  and  whether  the 


32  Opinions  of  the  religious  communities  on  the  war  with  the  Zam 
bales.  January  19-20,  1592,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VIII.  199-233. 


The  Advisory  Powers  243 

natives  would  make  good  soldiers.  The  audiencia  furnished 
information  to  the  king  concerning  the  availability  of  the 
various  Philippine  woods  for  shipbuilding,  and  it  furnished 
estimates  as  to  the  probable  cost  of  ships  both  for  commerce 
and  war.33  All  these  matters  were  supposed  to  come  within 
the  special  military  jurisdiction  of  the  governor,  yet,  not  only 
that  official,  but  the  king  himself,  required  the  advice  of  the 
magistrates  on  these  questions. 

The  conquest  of  Mindanao  and  the  war  in  the  Mo 
luccas  were  also  subjects  of  correspondence  between  the 
court  and  the  local  audiencia.3*  The  king,  on  various  occasions, 
requested  information  of  the  aidores  concerning  the  natives  and 
their  attitude  towards  law  and  order,  whether  the  various  tribes 
were  quiet,  by  nature  peaceful  or  warlike,  and  what  meas 
ures,  in  the  opinions  of  the  magistrates,  would  be  best  in  deal 
ing  wdth  them.  The  audiencia  was  consulted  on  other  occasions 
as  to  the  best  manner  of  fortifying  the  Visayan  Islands 
against  the  attacks  of  the  Moros,  and  northern  Luzon  against 
the  Chinese  and  Japanese,  the  possible  cost  and  most  suitable 
locations  of  fortifications,  and  their  availability  and  probable 
value  in  repelling  invasions. 

The  reliance  of  the  governor  and  the  court  upon  the  magis 
trates  of  the  audiencia  for  advice  in  the  matter  of  defense  was 
not  characteristic  only  of  the  early  years  of  Philippine  history. 
In  1744  Governor  Torre  submitted  his  scheme  for  the  fortifica 
tion  of  the  city  of  Manila  to  the  audiencia  before  he  sent  it  to 
the  king  for  final  approval.35  Torre  was  aided  by  a  regular 
council  of  war  (consejo  de  guerra)  of  which  the  oidores  were 
members  and  he  submitted  questions  relative  to  the  defense  of 
the  Islands  to  this  council.  In  1746,  this  local  council  of  war 


33  Audiencia  to  the  King,  January  7,  1597,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

34  A.  I.,  105-2-1  to  10  are  replete  with  documents  illustrating  this 
phase  of  the  relation  of  the  audiencia  and  the  governor. 

33  Torre  to  the   King,   July   26,   1744,   A.   I.,  108-2-21. 


244          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

reported  on  the  advisability  and  feasibility  of  manufacturing 
guns  and  powder  in  the  colony.36  Governor  Obando,  writing 
in  1748  to  the  king,  and  commenting  on  the  relationship  of 
the  previous  governor  with  the  audiencia  in  the  matter  of  de 
fense,  divided  between  his  predecessor  and  the  audiencia  the 
responsibility  for  the  payment  of  ten  thousand  pesos  to  bribe 
the  Dutch  to  keep  away  from  the  city,  and  not  to  reduce  it.37 
In  a  subsequent  chapter  we  shall  discuss  the  important  part 
played  by  the  audiencia  in  the  defense  and  surrender  of  the 
Islands  to  the  British  in  1762.  These  incidents,  taken  at  ran 
dom  from  various  governors'  administrations,  show  that  the 
audiencia  was  required  to  do  all  that  it  could  to  assist  the  gov 
ernor  and  captain-general  in  the  defense  of  the  colony.  It  was 
also  called  upon  to  advise  the  court  on  military  affairs;  thus 
it  was  frequently  able  to  assist  in  formulating  and  guiding  the 
policies  of  the  home  government  with  regard  to  defense  and 
military  administration.  In  this  way  an  indirect,  but  distinct 
check  was  placed  upon  the  governor  in  his  own  field,  and 
an  incapable  or  radical  executive  was  thus  prevented  from 
endangering  the  peace  and  security  of  the  colony. 

But  the  influence  of  the  audiencia  operated  much  more 
effectively  in  defense  of  the  colony  than  through  the  advice 
which  it  rendered  either  to  the  king  or  to  the  governor.  From 
1601  to  1625,  during  which  period  the  residents  of  the  colony 
were  continually  alarmed  by  the  unceasing  encroachments  of 


se  Report  of  Council  of  War,  June  18,  1746,  A.  I.,  108-2-21.  See 
note  17  of  this  chapter,  which  deals  with  the  local  council  of  war. 
On  the  occasion  referred  to,  it  acted  as  a  courtmartial.  It  also  had 
power  to  advise  the  governor,  and  even  to  prevent  the  military 
officials  from  taking  steps  which  would  inflict  injustice  on  the  natives 
in  connection  with  military  operations.  Here  it  may  be  seen  that 
magistrates  were  actually  members  of  this  council,  and  in  this 
capacity  they  advised  the  governor  as  to  the  best  means  of  fortifying 
and  defending  the  Islands.  The  laws  of  the  Indies  are  singularly 
lacking  in  definite  statements  as  to  the  legal  composition  and  mem 
bership  of  this  council. 

37  Obando  to  the  King,  August  15,  1748,  A.  I.,  108-2-21. 


Defense  245 

the  Dutch,  the  audiencia  was  frequently  obliged  to  assume 
responsibility  for  the  defense  of  the  colony.  In  1600  and  1601, 
when  Francisco  Tello  de  Guzman  Avas  governor,  Antonio  de 
Morga,  the  senior  oidor,  led  an  expedition  against  the  Dutch 
pirate  Van  Noordt  and  defeated  him  in  Manila  Bay.  In  1607, 
the  audiencia,  then  in  charge  of  the  government,  maintained  the 
defense  of  Manila  and  Cavite  against  the  Dutch.38  While  Gov 
ernor  Pedro  de  Acuna  was  absent  in  the  Moluccas  in  1605-1606 
on  a  campaign  of  conquest,  the  audiencia  entertained  and  re 
sponded  to  a  petition  from  the  king  of  Tidore  for  assistance  in 
resisting  the  oppression  of  the  king  of  Ternate.  The  war  in 
the  Moluccas  was  continued  by  the  interim  government  of  the 
audiencia  (1606-1608). 

The  audiencia  repeatedly  assumed  charge  of  the  government 
during  the  frequent  absences  of  Governor  Juan  de  Silva 
(1609-1616)  on  expeditions  of  conquest;  and  it  governed  two 
years  after  his  death  (1616-1618).  Under  the  leadership  of 
Oidor  Andres  de  Alcaraz  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the 
Islands  repeatedly  repelled  the  invasions  of  the  Dutch. ™  Of 
special  merit  was  the  work  of  this  oidor  in  the  preparation  and 
equipment  of  a  fleet  of  seven  galleons  which  he  led  in  the  battle 
of  Playa  Honda,  on  April  14,  1617.  In  order  to  raise  money 
with  which  to  meet  the  expenses  of  this  campaign,  the  audiencia 
was  compelled  to  resort  to  the  extraordinary  recourse  of  seiz 
ing  the  money  of  Manila  merchants  011  its  arrival  from  Aca- 
pulco  on  the  galleon.  It  also  forced  loans  from  residents  and 
officials  who  were  in  the  colony.  The  audiencia  authorized  the 
sale  and  the  payment  in  advance  for  space  on  the  galleon  of 
the  coming  year.  Alcaraz,  in  a  report  to  the  king,  stated  that 
the  oidores  had  labored  with  diligence  for  the  defense  of  the 
colony,  personally  concerning  themselves  with  the  casting  of 
artillery,  the  drilling  of  soldiers,  the  obtaining  of  supplies,  and 


38  Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XV,   205-237. 
so  Martinez  de  Zuniga,  An  historical  view,  I,  239-241. 


246         Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

in  otherwise  preparing  the  city  for  more  adequate  defense.40 
Under  the  leadership  of  the  able  soldiers  and  captains- 
general,  Juan  Nino  de  Tavora  (1626-1632),  Sebastian  Hurtado 
de  Corcuera  (1634-1635),  and  Diego  Fajardo  (1644-1653), 
the  audiencia  interfered  but  little  with  the  notable  military  op 
erations  of  that  period.  Exception  to  this  statement  must  be 
made  in  the  cases  of  the  capture  and  relinquishment  of  the 
island  of  Formosa  in  1629  and  1642,  respectively.  The  audi 
encia  was  unreservedly  opposed  to  the  proposed  conquest  of 
the  island  by  Governor  Tavora,  who,  nevertheless,  undertook 
the  expedition  and  carried  it  to  a  successful  conclusion.  When 
Governor  Corcuera  decided  that  the  position  of  the  Spaniards 
in  Formosa  was  untenable  and  resolved  to  withdraw  the  garri 
son,  the  audiencia  was  equally  forceful  in  its  remonstrances. 
It  sent  charges  to  the  court  against  the  governor,  alleging  that 
this  loss,  and.  that  of  the  Moluccas  the  year  before  would  as 
suredly  lead  to  the  greater  disaster  of  the  loss  of  the  Philip 
pines.41 

The  important  part  played  by  the  audiencia  in  the  defense 
of  Manila  against  the  British  in  1762  wrill  be  discussed  in  an 
other  chapter.  While  Governor  Rojo  and  the  majority  of  the 
oidorcs  were  in  the  city,  surrounded  by  the  enemy,  Oidor  Anda 
y  Salazar,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  provinces  as  visitor,  or 
ganized  and  maintained  a  defense  against  the  enemy.  When 
he  was  commanded  by  the  governor  to  surrender,  he  refused, 
successfully  maintaining  the  claim  that  as  the  sole,  legally- 
appointed  oidor  who  had  not  surrendered,  he  was  both  audi 
encia  and  governor,  and  as  such  his  actions  were  legal.  His 


40  In    recommending    the    services    of    Licentiate    Madrid    y    Luna, 
oidor  of  the  Manila  audiencia,  Alcaraz  wrote  to  the  king  as  follows: 
"On  that  account,  and  for  the  good   accomplished  by  his   services   in 
this   Royal   Audiencia,    the    said    Licentiate    Madrid    claims    that   your 
Majesty    should    grant   him    as   a   reward    permission    to    marry    some 
of  his  seven  daughters  and  three  sons  in  Mexico"    (Alcaraz  to  Felipe 
III,  August  10,  1617,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVIII,  52). 

41  Formosa  lost  to   Spain,   Blair  and   Robertson,   XXXV,    128-162. 


The  Audienci-a's  Military  Activities  247 

claims  were  recognized  and  approved  by  the  king.  This  is 
perhaps  the  most  peculiar  and  extraordinary  example  of  the 
audiencia's  assumption  of  military  power. 

The  frequent  assumption  of  the  government  by  the  audi- 
eiicia,  with  responsibility  for  matters  of  defense  and  military 
administration  may  be  cited  as  an  additional  reason  for  its 
reluctance  to  entirely  abandon  its  interest  in  these  affairs  on 
the  arrival  of  a  governor.  Notwithstanding  this,  and  the  addi 
tional  fact  that  the  king  and  governor  frequently  consulted  the 
audiencia  on  military  affairs,  the  tribunal  did  not  always  seek 
to  retain  preeminence  in  military  affairs.  This  fact  is  shown 
by  a  letter  which  the  audiencia  wrote  in  1598,  acknowledging 
that  "the  only  cases  in  which  the  governor  is  entitled  to  entire 
jurisdiction  are  those  over  soldiers — and  these  cases  he  may 
try  independently,  since  he  is  captain-general."42  There  were 
numerous  other  occasions  on  which  the  audiencia  unreservedly 
recognized  the  jurisdiction  of  the  governor,  often  protesting 
against  his  excesses  in  military  matters,  but  going  no  further 
than  to  register  its  protestations.  For  instance,  it  charged 
Governor  Fajardo  with  carelessness  in  the  outfitting  of  ships  to 
resist  the  Dutch.  One  ship,  it  was  said,  was  so  poorly  equipped 
that  it  sank  before  it  left  port.  Fajardo  was  moreover  ac 
cused  of  removing  the  commander  of  one  of  these  ships,  sub 
stituting  his  fifteen-year-old  brother,  Luis  Fajardo,  at  a  salary 
of  40,000  pesos.  The  audiencia  contented  itself  with  remon 
strances  against  these  wrongs,  but  it  made  no  attempt  to  in 
terfere.43  Fajardo  had  his  way  in  these  matters,  but  he  would 
have  been  compelled  to  answer  for  them  personally  in  his 
residencia  had  he  not  died  before  that  investigation  took  place. 

The  governor's  accountability  for  the  government  of  the 
Chinese  was  closely  related  to  his  jurisdiction  over  military 


42  Audiencia  to  the  King,  July  15,  1598,  A.  I.,  67-6-18. 

43  Audiencia  to   Felipe   III,    August    8,    1620,    Blair   and    Robertson, 
XIX,   77-89. 


248          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

affairs.  The  Chinese  were  regarded  with  great  suspicion  by 
the  residents  of  Manila,  who  lived  in  constant  fear  of  an  out 
break  in  the  Parian,  or  of  a  descent  upon  the  coast  of  Luzon 
by  Chinese  from  without.  The  problem  of  the  Chinese  was 
therefore  essentially  one  of  defense,  and  as  such  it  was  en 
trusted  to  the  governor  and  captain-general.  Nevertheless,  the 
audiencia  claimed  the  right  to  intervene  in  many  matters  per 
taining  to  the  government  of  these  people,  and  there  was  much 
dissension  between  the  oidores  and  the  governor  over  this 
question.  The  governor  on  some  occasions  rigidly  resisted  the 
claims  of  the  audiencia  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  Chi 
nese,  and  on  others  he  invited  the  participation  of  the  tribunal. 
This  state  of  affairs  was  brought  about  by  the  seeming  conflict 
of  the  laws  bearing  upon  this  question. 

The  earliest  legislation  to  be  found  in  the  laws  of  the 
Indies  dealing  with  the  government  of  the  Chinese  was  enacted 
on  April  15,  1603.44  This  law  forbade  the  alcaldes  ordinaries 
to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  suits  of  the  Chinese  in  the  Parian, 
but  it  ordered  that  all  cases  involving  them  should  be  tried  by 
a  special  alcalde  of  the  Parian  with  right  of  appeal  to  the 
audiencia.  A  special  judge  was  thus  created  by  this  law,  with 
jurisdiction  over  the  Chinese.45  The  purpose  of  this  enactment 
was  to  establish  a  system  of  judicial  procedure  for  the  Chinese, 
whereby  the  latter  might  be  kept  apart  from  the  Spaniards 
and  natives  in  judicial  as  well  as  in  governmental  administra 
tion.  This  necessity  was  partly  based  on  economic  considera- 


44  Rccopilacion,  5-3-24;    also  A.   I.,   105-2-1. 

45  Recoinlacion,    2-15-55.      Don  Antonio    de    Morga,    writing   in    his 
Sucesos  in  1609,  described  the  Chinese  government  of  the  Parian  as 
follows:     "The  Chinese  have  a  governor  of  their  own  race,  a  Christian, 
who  has  his  officials  and  assistants.     He  hears  their  cases  in  affairs  of 
justice,  in  their  domestic  and  business  affairs;  appeals  from  him  go  to 
the  alcalde-mayor  of  Tondo,  or  of  the  Parian,  and  from  all  these  to  the 
Audiencia,  which  also  gives  especial  attention  to  this  nation  and  what 
ever  pertains  to  it"  (Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVI,  197). 
See  W.  L.   Schurz,   "The  Chinese   in   the  Philippines,"  in  The  Pacific 
Ocean  in  liistory,  214-222. 


The  Chinese  249 

tions,   and  partly  on  racial  and  religious  reasons ;   it   was   de 
signed  essentially  for  the  protection  of  the  Spaniards.46 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  law  of  April  15,  1603,  the  audi 
encia  immediately  proceeded  to  concern  itself  with  the  govern 
ment  of  the  Chinese.'  It  claimed  jurisdiction  particularly  over 
the  right  to  issue  licenses  allowing  Chinese  to  reside  and  trade 
in  the  Philippines.  This  authority  was  also  claimed  by  the 
governor  arid  captain-general,  who  was  responsible  for  the 
defense  of  the  Islands.  The  audiencia  also  proceeded  to  issue 
regulations  for  the  Chinese  trade,  laying  itself  open  to  the 
charge  of  selfish  interest  in  these  commercial  activities.  Com 
plaints  against  the  audiencia 's  intervention  reaching  the  court, 
•new  regulations  were  issued  on  November  4  and  December  1, 
1606,  which  forbade  the  audiencia  to  concern  itself  with  any 
thing  relative  to  the  government  and  administration  of  the 
Parian,  or  with  the  Chinese  who  might  come  to  the  Islands 
for  the  purpose  of  trade,  except  at  the  solicitation  of  the 
governor.47  In  the  letter  accompanying  these  orders,  the  king 
informed  Governor  Acuiia  that  although  the  Chinese  in  the 
Parian  were  under  his  charge,  he  was  to  take  no  important 
steps  for  their  government  without  first  consulting  the  audi- 
tincia.  The  inference  of  this  law  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
audiencia  might  have  other  activities  than  the  purely  judicial. 
This  implication  gave  rise  later  to  a  considerable  difference  of 
opinion,  but  in  consequence  of  this  law  the  governor  was  es 
tablished  as  the  fountain  of  authority  in  Chinese  affairs,  with 
the  oidores  in  a  secondary  position. 


46  The  Chinese  were  altogether  too  shrewd   in   business     for     the 
other  residents  of  Manila.     The  desire  to  avoid   trouble  and  to  keep 
from  provoking  the  Chinese  to  rebellion  were  also  factors,  and  there 
were    institutional    and     religious     reasons.       The    Chinese     were    of 
different    race    and    heritage    and    their    practices    and    beliefs    were 
regarded    by    the    Catholic    Spaniards    as    altogether    heathenish    and 
heretical,    and    judging    by    almost    any    standard    of    morality    and 
cleanliness    it   must    be    conceded    that    some    of   them    at    least    were 
indecent  and  revolting. 

47  Ccdula  of   December   1,   1606,   A.    I.,   105-2-1. 


250          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

On  June  12,  1614,  Philip  III  re-enacted  the  above  law  with 
some  modifications.  The  fiscal  was  made  legal  protector  of  the 
Chinese.  He  was  ordered  to  advise  the  alcalde  of  the  Parian  in 
legal  matters  pertaining  to  them,  and  the  alcalde  was  to  take  no 
important  steps  without  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  fiscal*8' 
The  governor  was  ordered  not  to  allow  any  ordinary  or  special 
judge,  alcalde  del  crimcn,  or  oidor,  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in 
first  instance  over  civil  suits  or  criminal  cases  of  the  Chinese, 
or  to  make  inspections  in  the  Parian.  The  last  clause  of  this 
law,  however,  qualified  and  rendered  dubious  the  effect  and 
meaning  of  the  entire  enactment,  by  adding,  "unless  in  a  case 
so  extraordinary,  necessary  and  imperative  that  it  may  appear 
convenient  to  limit  this  rule." 

It  will  not  be  extraneous  to  point  out  here  that  this  was 
a  common  weakness  of  many  laws,  by  which  they  were  fre 
quently  rendered  entirely  inapplicable.  In  this  case,  for  ex 
ample,  the  evident  object  was  to  prevent  the  oidores  from  inter 
fering  in  Chinese  affairs,  thus  guaranteeing  the  government  and 
administration  by  officials  who  were  endowed  with  knowledge 
and  understanding  of  their  racial  characteristics  and  peculiari 
ties,  while  centering  the  ultimate  responsibility  for  them  in  the 
governor.  It  was  realized,  however,  that  exceptional  cases 
might  arise  in  which  some  other  procedure  might  be  advisable, 
and  accordingly  a  loophole  was  left  whereby  the  entire  law 
could  be  nullified.  The  audiencia  was  thus  given  a  basis  for 
intervention  in  the  government  of  the  Chinese  whenever  it 
suited  the  convenience  of  the  magistrates.  This  defect  is  empha 
sized  here  because  this  particular  exception  justified  the  inter 
vention  of  the  audiencia  on  many  occasions,  and  was  a  cause 
of  continual  contention  between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia 
in  Chinese  affairs. 

Although   it  is  difficult  to  settle  conclusively  the   question 


48  Recopilacinn,    6-18-6. 


Administrative  Authority  251 

of  the  extent  of  jurisdiction  which  the  governor  and  the  audi 
encia,  respectively,  exercised  over  the  Chinese  in  the  Parian, 
a  few  cases  may  be  presented  in  this  connection  to  show  that  both 
the  governor  and  the  audiencia  were  justified  by  royal  authority 
in  advancing  claims  to  control.  On  December  4,  1630,  the  king 
wrote  a  scathing  arraignment  of  the  audiencia  for  having  enter 
tained  an  appeal  from  the  Chinese  over  the  head  of  the  governor, 
practically  disregarding  the  latter,  and  for  making  recommenda 
tions  relative  to  the  Chinese  and  to  military  affairs,  which  ques 
tions  were  entirely  outside  its  province.49  One  of  the  items 
of  the  report  of  the  recent  visitor-general  to  the  Philippines, 
Licentiate  Francisco  de  Rojas  y  Ornate  in  1629,  had  been  a 
charge  that  the  audiencia  had  condemned  and  fined  a  Chinese 
merchant  for  smuggling  munitions  of  war  into  the  colony,  after 
the  latter  had  proved  that  he  had  been  acting  under  the  in 
structions  of  Governor  Silva/'0  The  visitor-general  took  the 
position  that  this  case  was  entirely  within  the  military  sphere ; 
therefore  the  governor's  decision  was  final,  and  the  audiencia 
was  proceeding  without  jurisdiction  in  attempting  to  deal  with 
it.  The  king  called  upon  the  tribunal  to  justify  its  action  in 
the  matter.31  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  this  case  the  point  at 
issue  was  not  that  the  audiencia  was  interfering  with  a  China 
man  who  should  have  been  punished  by  another  authority,  but 
that  in  assuming  jurisdiction  the  audiencia  had  infringed  on 
the  special  prerogatives  of  the  governor  with  regard  to  war 
and  government.  The  frequency  and  seriousness  of  the  Chinese 
insurrections  in  the  early  seventeenth  century,  and  the  fear  of 
a  hostile  invasion  from  China,  placed  all  questions  of  dealing 


40  King  to  the  Audiencia,  December  4,  1630,  A.  I.,  105-2-10.  The 
Chinese  had  asked  the  king  on  this  occasion  to  remove  Governor 
Tavora.  The  magistrates,  jealous  of  the  governor,  and  desiring  to 
see  him  dispossessed  of  his  office,  forwarded  this  request  to  the  king. 

so  Royal  instructions  to  Geronimo  Ortiz  y  Capata,  February  4,  1631, 
A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

si  King  to  the  Audiencia,  December  4,  1630,  A.  I.,   105-2-10. 


252          Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

with  the  Chinese  upon  a  military  basis,  hence  the  authority  of 
the  governor. 

Much  correspondence  of  various  kinds  might  be  cited  to  show 
that  the  governor  was  encouraged  to  consult  the  audiencia  on 
Chinese  affairs.  Not  only  was  the  governor  expected  to  do  this, 
but  the  king  himself  directed  many  letters  to  the  "governor  and 
audiencia"  and  to  the  "governor  and  oidores,"  in  which  he 
asked  for  advice  and  information  bearing  upon  Chinese  affairs. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  cedillas  treating  of  these  matters  were 
frequently  expedited  to  the  "governor  and  audiencia."  The 
audiencia  was  requested  by  the  royal  authority  on  August  8, 
1609,  to  submit  information  as  to  the  truth  of  various  state 
ments  by  persons  in  the  Islands  that  the  Chinese  were  carrying 
away  vast  quantities  of  silver.  The  audiencia  was  ordered  to 
enact  measures  which  would  stop  this.abuse,  which,  if  persisted 
in,  would  inevitably  result  in  an  impoverishment  of  the  Philip 
pine  community  and  government.  The  oidores  were  asked  to 
suggest  a  course  of  action  which  would  result  in  the  retention  of 
the  Chinese  trade  and  at  the  same  time  prevent  the  Chinese 
from  doing  irreparable  damage  to  the  royal  exchequer  in  the 
ways  alluded  to.52 

In  further  illustration  of  the  same  subject,  we  may  note 
the  instructions  of  the  king  to  Governor  Silva,  dated  March  27, 
1616.  On  this  occasion  the  king  prescribed  a  course  of  action 
for  the  governor  to  follow  in  case  of  the  invasion  of  the  Islands 
by  the  Chinese  and  Japanese.  He  was  especially  directed  to 
prevent  a  union  of  the  Chinese  in  the  Parian  with  the  forces  of 
the  expected  invaders.  Silva  was  ordered  to  take  no  steps  with 
out  first  consulting  the  oidores.^  On  July  25,  1619,  having 
received  news  of  the  insubordination  of  the  Chinese  in  Manila 
and  of  the  danger  of  a  revolt  among  them,  the  king  wrote  to 
the  "president  and  oidores"  expressing  the  belief  that  too 


•"King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  8,  1609,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 
53  King  to  Governor  Silva,  March  27,   1616,  A.   I.,   105-2-1. 


Advisory  Functions  253 

many  Chinese  had  been  admitted  to  the  Islands  and  that  there 
after  only  enough  should  be  permitted  to  man  the  ships  and 
carry  on  trade.54  The  authorities  to  whom  this  letter  was 
directed  were  charged  not  to  allow  the  royal  will  relative  to 
this  matter  to  be  disregarded,  which,  of  course,  implied  the 
exercise  of  an  executive  power  on  the  part  of  the  magistrates, 
in  addition  to  consultative  authority. 

Again,  on  December  31,  1630,  the  king  wrote  to  the  governor 
and  audiencia,  stating  that  there  had  been  received  at  the  court 
from  the  Chinese  of  the  Parian,  a  series  of  memorials,  letters 
and  petitions,  complaining  against  the  rigor  of  Spanish  admin 
istration  and  requesting  that  they  might  be  governed  by  man 
darins,  governors  and  alcaldes  may  ores  of  the  ' '  Chinese  nation. ' ' 
The  king  signified  his  unwillingness  to  comply  with  their  request 
at  this  time,  and  accordingly  ordered  the  governor  and  audiencia 
to  permit  no  changes  to  be  made.55  On  July  27,  1713,  the  tri 
bunal,  acting  in  a  legislative  capacity,  decreed  that  within  thirty 
days  "all  Moros,  Armenians,  Malabars,  Chinese  and  other 
enemies  of  the  Holy  Faith ' '  should  be  lodged  in  the  Parian  when 
visiting  Manila,  or  when  living  there  temporarily  for  purposes  of 
visit  or  trade.  Penalties  were  also  prescribed  for  the  infraction 
of  the  above  law.56  This  affords  one  illustration  out  of  many 
which  could  be  cited  of  the  legislation  of  the  audiencia  in  Chi 
nese  affairs.57 

On  May  14,  1790,  the  king  wrote  to  the  "governor  and  presi 
dent  of  the  royal  audiencia"  and  also  to  the  tribunal,  ordering 
the  re-establishment  of  the  Parian.  This  Chinese  quarter  had 
been  abolished  since  1756.  It  was  agreed  that  the  Chinese  in 


->iKing  to  the  President  and  oidores,  July  25,  1619,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

55  King  to  the  President  and  oidores,  December  21,  1630,  A.  I., 
105-2-1. 

50  Acucrdv  of  July  27,  1713,  A.  I.,  68-4-17. 

"<7  Attention  was  called  in  the  last  chapter  to  the  acncrAo  power 
of  the  audiencia  in  Chinese  affairs.  It  was  seen  there  that  the 
audiencia  passed  ordinances  regulating  the  Chinese  trade,  also  their 
organization  and  manner  of  living  in  the  Islands. 


254         Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

this  district  should  be  ruled  by  an  alcalde,  who  should  also  hear 
cases  in  first  instance,  with  appeal  to  the  audiencia.  It  was 
furthermore  decreed  that  the  Chinese  population  in  the  Islands 
should  be  fixed  at  4000  and  that  each  individual  should  be  taxed 
at  the  rate  of  six  pesos  per  capita.58  This  tax  was  to  be  collected 
by  the  cabecilla  of  the  Chinese,  a  sort  of  local  leader,  subject 
to  the  alcalde  of  the  Parian.  This  cedilla,  the  king  stated,  was 
originally  suggested  by  the  acuerdo  of  the  audiencia,  and  had 
been  submitted  for  royal  approval,  which  had  been  duly  con 
ceded.  This  correspondence,  which  shows  the  real  operation 
of  the  government  much  more  accurately  than  the  citation  of 
laws  alone  could  do,  makes  it  quite  clear  that  throughout  the 
history  of  the  Islands,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  many 
cedillas  to  the  contrary,  the  audiencia  exercised  advisory  power 
in  regard  to  the  government  of  the  Chinese.  This  authority  was 
repeatedly  recognized  by  the  governor  and  by  the  king  himself. 
After  the  inauguration  of  the  superintendency  of  real  haci 
enda  at  Manila  in  1787,  the  incumbent  of  that  office  was  made 
largely  responsible  for  the  Chinese.  This  was  probably  so 
arranged  because  the  care  and  administration  of  the  Chinese  at 
that  time  involved  questions  of  finance  rather  than  of  war  and 
defense.  It  will  be  remembered,  too,  that,  during  much  of  the 
time,  the  office  of  superintendent  was  combined  with  that  of 
governor.  A  number  of  disputes  arose  between  the  governor  and 
the  intendant  after  the  latter  office  was  created  in  1785, r'9  but 
after  the  union  of  the  governorship  with  the  superintendency, 


••'8  King  to  the  President  and  oidores,  May  14,  1790,  A.  I.,  105-9-10. 
This  tax  was  collected  from  the  Chinese  in  1852,  when  Jagor,  the 
celebrated  German  traveller,  visited  the  Islands.  Chinese  who  were 
engaged  in  agriculture  paid  merely  the  tribute  of  twelve  rcales, 
which  was  collected  from  natives  as  well.  In  addition  to  the  tax 
of  six  dollars  (probably  Mexican,  which  were  equivalent  to  the  silver 
peso)  merchants  paid  an  industrial  tax  of  twelve,  thirty,  sixty,  or 
one  hundred  dollars,  according  to  the  amount  of  business  transacted 
(Blair  and  Robertson,  LII,  57-58,  note). 

59  Consulta  of  June  28,  1786;  Intendant  Carvajal  to  King,  Decem 
ber  31,  1787,  and  other  letters;  A.  I.,  107-5-15. 


Judicial  Authority  255 

no  further  occasion  of  dispute  arose.  During  the  greater  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  office  of  in- 
tendant  gave  to  the  latter  official  the  duty  of  collecting  the 
licenses  of  the  Chinese,  subject  to  the  superintendent. 

There  yet  remains  something  to  be  said  regarding  the  admin 
istration  of  justice  among  the  Chinese,  and  we  must  note  certain 
typical  disputes  and  disagreements  which  arose  in  that  con 
nection.  That  the  audiencia  had  authority  to  try  cases  in  second 
instance  involving  the  Chinese  has  already,  been  stated.  Like 
wise  the  'Oidores  were  liable  to  special  delegation  to  try  cases  of 
an  extraordinary  character  which  arose  among  the  Chinese,  as, 
for  example  in  1786,  wrhen  Oidor  Bolivar  y  Mena  was  designated 
to  try  in  first  instance  charges  which  had  been  made  against 
Chinese  bakers  in  the  Parian,  who  were  said  to  have  put  a  quan 
tity  of  powdered  glass  in  bread  which  they  had  made  for  the 
Spaniards.  This  case  was  regarded  as  one  of  more  than  ordi 
nary  significance,  as  involving  treason  and  insurrection,  and  it 
was  accordingly  tried  by  an  oidor  who  had  been  especially  dele 
gated  for  the  purpose  by  the  governor.60 

The  question  of  Chinese  jurisdiction  is  further  illustrated 
by  a  dispute  which  arose  in  the  colony  between  the  audiencia 
and  the  governor,  and  which  was  carried  to  the  king  by  the 
latter  functionary  on  June  30,  1793.  Oidor  Moreno  had  ordered 
the  arrest  of  the  Chinese  cabecilla  of  the  Parian  on  a  criminal 
charge.61  The  detention  of  the  Chinaman  was  conceded  to  be 
justifiable,  but  Governor  Marquina  alleged  that  Moreno  had 
entirely  disregarded  the  cedilla  of  October  11,  1784,  which  had 
ordered  that  in  case  of  the  arrest  of  any  royal  official,  notifica 
tion  should  be  served  to  the  governor  in  sufficient  time  for  him 
to  take  the  proper  precautions  for  the  safeguarding  of  any  of 


G<>  Testimonio  de  autos  sobre  sublevacion  de  los  sangleycs,  sub- 
stanciados  y  determina-dos  por  cl  oidor,  Don  Pedro  Sebastian  Bolivar 
y  Mena,  1686-1690,  A.  I.,  68-1-27. 

6i  Marquina  to  the  King,  June  30,  1793,  A.   I.,  107-5-22. 


256         Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

His  Majesty's  property  which  might  be  in  the  care  or  under 
the  protection  of  the  official  in  question.  He  said  that  this  par 
ticular  arrest  was  typical  of  the  petty  interference  of  the  oidorcs 
and  illustrative  of  the  slight  pretexts  upon  which  they  fre 
quently  upset  the  whole  system  of  government  and  caused  untold 
annoyances.  On  account  of  the  many  difficulties  in  the  collec 
tion  of  the  tribute  which  had  presented  themselves  as  a  conse 
quence  of  the  arrest  of  this  particular  Chinese  official,  and  be 
cause  the  latter  was  especially  efficient,  the  governor  had  asked 
the  audiencia  to  permit  the  cabccilla  to  be  excused  on  condition 
that  he  should  bind  himself  to  return  to  the  custody  of  the 
audiencia  after  he  had  collected  the  taxes.  This  the  tribunal 
had  refused.  The  government,  as  a  consequence,  had  been  put 
to  much  inconvenience  in  finding  a  substitute,  and  the  sum  col 
lected  had  been  considerably  less  than  was  usually  obtained, 
owing  to  the  lack  of  experience  of  the  new  collector.  After  the 
cabecilla  had  been  in  prison  over  four  months,  he  was  brought 
to  trial,  and  nothing  being  proved  against  him,  he  was  freed. 
The  audiencia,  however,  had  won  its  point,  and  had  manifested 
its  right  to  the  last  word  in  judicial  affairs  relating  to  the 
Chinese. 

The  difference  between,  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the 
audiencia  in  contentious  cases  involving  Chinese  and  in  admin 
istrative  matters  which  it  did  not  have  is  illustrated  by  a  case 
which  came  up  in  1794  and  lasted  through  twelve  years  of  liti 
gation.  In  the  year  aforementioned,  the  ayuntamiento  of  Manila 
brought  suit  before  an  alcalde  ordinario  of  the  city  against  a 
Chinese,  Augustm  Chagisco,  on  a  charge  of  the  failure  of  the 
latter  properly  to  fulfill  a  contract  which  he  had  made  to  supply 
the  city  with  meat.  The  alcalde  ordinario,  before  whom  suit 
had  been  brought  in  first  instance,  cancelled  the  contract,  and 
the  Chinese  appealed  to  the  audiencia.  The  tribunal,  after  due 
consideration  of  the  case,  restored  Chagisco  to  his  status  as  pro 
vider  of  meats  (abastecedor  de  came]  for  the  city.  Instead  of 


Judicial  Authority  257 

appealing  the  case  as  one  of- law,  the  ayuntamiento  wrote  to  the 
king  on  January  19,  1796,  alleging  that  the  audiencia  had  inter 
fered  in  behalf  of  a  Chinese  whose  services  the  ayuntamiento 
had  discontinued  as  provider  of  meats,  over  which  matter  the 
audiencia  had  no  jurisdiction.  The  king  immediately  gave  ex 
pression  of  his  approval  of  the  stand  of  the  ayuntamiento,  being 
of  the  impression  that  the  question  at  stake  was  one  of  appoint 
ment  only.62  At  the  same  time  the  king  demanded  a  full  ex 
planation  from  the  oidores  as  to  why  they  had  interfered  in  this 
matter  which  was  so  far  removed  from  their  jurisdiction.  The 
audiencia,  in  reply,  sent  all  the  records  and  testimonies  of  the 
suit  to  the  Council,  and  that  tribunal  called  upon  the  ayunta 
miento  in  due  time  to  explain  why  it  had  misrepresented  the 
case.  After  a  long  period  of  acrimonious  correspondence  be 
tween  the  Manila  authorities,  the  case  was  concluded  on  Feb 
ruary  19,  1806,  by  a  reversal  of  the  earlier  decision,  and  His 
Majesty  sent  a  letter  of  congratulation  and  approval  to  the 
audiencia  in  appreciation  of  its  stand  in  the  matter.63  The  king 
informed  the  tribunal  that  it  had  been  entirely  regular  in  its 
proceedings,  having  reversed  the  decision  of  the  alcalde  ordinario 
in  a  legal  suit  which  had  been  appealed  by  the  Chinese  to  the 
audiencia  in  protest  against  the  adverse  decision  of  the  lower 
court. 

Without  carrying  this  discussion  further,  it  is  clear  that  the 
audiencia  had  general  appellate  jurisdiction  in  cases  involving 
the  Chinese.  These  cases,  when  they  originated  in  the  Parian, 
were  tried  in  first  instance  by  special  judges  for  the  Chinese, 
but  suits  brought  against  a  Chinese  who  lived  outside,  or  suits 
of  a  semi-public  nature,  as  the  one  just  noted,  might  be  tried 
in  first  instance  by  the  ordinary  judges.  It  has  also  been  noted 
that  oidores  were  sometimes  delegated  to  try  cases  in  first 
instance  involving  treason  or  insurrection  of  Chinese.  In  regard 


62  King  to  the  Audiencia,  November  30,  1797,  A.   I.,   105-2-18. 
C3  King  to  the  Audiencia,  February  19,  1806,  ibid. 


258         Audiencia  and  Governor:  Military  Jurisdiction 

to  matters  of  government,  it  may  be  said  that  the  governor  was 
held  responsible,  but  even  in  these  the  oidorcs  participated  in  an 
advisory  capacity. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   AUDIENCIA  AND   THE   GOVERNOR:   CONFLICTS 
OF  JURISDICTION 

Although  it  may  be  said  that  the  relations  of  the  governor 
and  the  audiencia  were  comparatively  peaceful  and  harmonious 
throughout  the  history  of  the  Philippines,  there  were  many 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction  and  these  struggles  for  power  assume 
great  prominence  on  account  of  their  bitterness.  An  investiga 
tion  of  the  principles  underlying  them  and  the  arguments  ad 
vanced  by  the  contending  parties  will  go  far  towards  explain 
ing  the  relationship  of  the  audiencia  with  the  governor. 

Certain  factors  and  conditions  were  always  prevalent  in 
the  colony  to  cause  trouble  and  provoke  enmity  between  the 
governor  and  the  oidores.  Chief  among  these  were  the  rivalry 
between  them  for  commercial  profits,  jealously  of  power  and 
advancement,  and  the  desire  on  the  part  of  all,  and  particularly 
of  the  governors,  to  enrich  themselves.  Officials  tended  to  re 
gard 'their  appointments  as  commissions  to  engage  in  profitable 
ventures  and  business  undertakings — opportunities  which  were 
to  be  immediately  improved.  It  is  probable  that  the  presence 
of  the  audiencia  did  more  to  check  this  tendency  than  any 
other  agency,  for  the  documents  bearing  on  the  history  of  the 
colony  are  replete  with  charges  made  by  oidores  and  fiscales 
against  governors.  It  is  also  true  that  the  oidores  did  .effective 
work  in  correcting  the  misdeeds  of  the  provincial  governors 
and  justices  on  their  official  tours  of  inspection.  That  the 
audiencia  should  accomplish  this  result  was  to  be  expected, 
since  the  leading  purpose  of  its  establishment  was  to  check  the 
excesses  of  the  governor.  The  other  side  of  the  question  cannot 
be  neglected,  however,  for  charges  were  made  in  sufficient 


260       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

number  against  the  oidores.  It  is  with  these  charges  and 
counter-charges,  memorials,  complaints,  and  arguments  that  the 
present  chapter  is  concerned. 

The  method  to  be  pursued  in  this  chapter  will  be  that  of 
indicating  in  all  fairness  both  sides  of  these  conflicts,  not  with 
the  purpose  of  seeing  which  side  was  right,  but  with  the  object 
of  obtaining  the  respective  viewpoints  of  the  governors  and 
magistrates.  We  shall  first  consider  evidence  which  was  sub 
mitted  in  behalf  of  the  audiencia  against  the  governor,  and  in 
turn,  that  of  the  governors  against  the  oidores.  This  method  of 
procedure  is  the  only  one  feasible  since  the  materials  here 
utilized  consist  mostly  of  arguments  for  or  against  the  governor 
or  audiencia,  respectively. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  first  notorious  disagreement 
in  the  colony  arose  between  Bishop  Salazar  and  Governors 
Ronquillo  de  Penalosa  and  Santiago  de  Vera.  This  occurred 
before  the  establishment  of  the  audiencia.  The  audiencia  was 
in  fact  established  partly  to  have  an  impartial  tribunal  present 
to  arbitrate  such  disputes,  and  partly  to  check  the  excesses  of 
the  governor.1  We  have  also  given  attention  to  the  charges 
made  by  Oidor  Davalos  against  his  fellow-magistrates  and  the 
governor  shortly  after  the  audiencia  was  established.  It  has 
been  noted  that  the  incessant  quarreling  between  the  governor 
and  the  audiencia  from  1584  to  1589  wras  one  of  the  causes  for 
abolishing  the  tribunal  at  the  latter  date.  From  1590  to  1595 
the  governor  was  supreme  in  matters  of  government,  war,  and 
justice.  It  was  clearly  shown  during  this  period  that  the  dis- 


i  See  Chapter  II,  notes  61  and  64  of  this  book.  The  study  which 
Dr.  David  P.  Barrows  has  recently  made  of  the  office  of  governor  and 
captain-general  is  of  value  in  showing  the  continuity,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  evolution  of  the  office  from  Spanish  times  to  the  present.  Dr. 
Barrows  states  that  Miguel  Lopez  de  Legaspi  became  governor  and 
captain-general  of  the  Philippines  when  the  office  was  created  in  1567. 
The  original  ccrtula  of  establishment  and  appointment  is  in  Blair  and 
Robertson,  III,  62-66,  and  bears  the  date  of  August  14,  1569.  See  Bar 
rows,  "The  governor-general  of  the  Philippines  under  Spain  and  the 
United  States,"  in  The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history,  p.  239. 


Abuses  261 

cord  of  a  quarrelsome  tribunal  was  eminently  to  be  preferred 
to  the  unchecked  abuses  of  an  autocratic  governor.  In  1595 
the  audiencia  was  re-established  by  royal  enactment ;  from  that 
date  onward  it  became  a  permanent  part  of  the  government, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  its  relations  with  the  other  in 
stitutions  of  the  colony  were  not  harmonious. 

There  were  two  complaints  most  frequently  made  against 
governors.  One  of  these  was  their  commercial  excesses  and  the 
other,  their  abuse  of  the  power  of  appointment.  The  former 
consisted  of  the  monopoly  of  galleon  space  for  themselves,  or 
their  friends,  the  acceptance  of  bribes  from  merchants  for 
various  favors,  or  the  manipulation  of  the  Chinese  trade  in 
some  way  for  their  own  advantage.  The  tendency  of  governors 
to  appoint  their  friends  and  relatives  to  office,  notwithstanding 
the  royal  prohibition,  and  the  apparent  inability  of  the  audi 
encia  to  prevent  this  was  a  source  of  complaint,  especially 
during  the  early  years  of  the  colony.2  Dishonest  proceedings 
in  the  sale  of  offices,  including  the  retention  of  the  money  re 
ceived  and  the  disposal  of  offices  to  friends  for  nominal  sums, 
were  among  the  irregularities  of  the  early  governors.  These 
abuses  the  magistrates  often  knowingly  permitted  in  return  for 
some  favor  allowed  them  by  the  governor.  That  the  laws  which 
forbade  these  abuses  of  the  power  of  appointment  had  been 
openly  and  flagrantly  violated  was  a  charge  brought  up  re 
peatedly  in  the  residencies  of  governors  and  magistrates.  An 
examination  of  the  correspondence  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  would  almost  lead  to  the  belief  that  the 
home  government  despaired  of  ever  righting  these  wrongs,  and 
left  them  unpunished,  rather  directing  efforts  towards  reform 
in  other  channels  in  the  hope  of  remedying  greater  defects. 

Perhaps  no  governor  more  flagrantly  disregarded  the 
audiencia  and  the  royal  authority  which  it  represented,  or  more 


-'  Fiscal  to  the  King,  July  21,   1599,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XI,  114, 
115;   Maldonado  to  the  King,  June  28,  1605,  ibid.,  XIII,  307-315. 


262       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

frequently  laid  himself  open  to  complaints  on  account  of  his 
violent  conduct  than  Alonso  Fajardo,  who  ruled  from  1618 
to  1624.  Numerous  charges  were  brought  against  him  by 
the  audiencia,  some  of  which  concerned  itself,  and  some  had 
to  do  with  the  general  administration  of  the  government. 
It  was  charged  that  Fajardo  sought  to  usurp  the  judicial 
functions  of  the  tribunal,  and  to  assume  control  of  the  adminis 
tration  of  justice.  He  had  on  one  occasion  broken  up  a  session 
of  the  court  during  the  trial  of  a  certain  person  for  murder, 
ordering  a  sergeant  to  take  him  out  and  hang  him.  Fajardo 
defended  himself  against  this  accusation  by  alleging  that  the 
criminal  was  a  sailor  from  the  royal  fleet,  whom  he,  as  captain- 
general,  had  already  condemned,  and  that  the  audiencia  was 
acting  illegally  in  entertaining  the  case.  Fajardo  was  said  to 
have  released  prisoners  at  his  own  pleasure,  and  to  have  abused 
the  pardoning  power.  He  had  made  threats  of  violence  against 
the  magistrates  in  the  court-room. 

The  audiencia  not  only  complained  against  this  governor's 
interference  with  the  exercise  of  its  functions  as  a  court,  but  it 
manifested  a  wider  interest  than  the  purely  judicial  by  com 
plaining  against  the  excesses  of  the  governor  in  his  own  admin 
istrative  field.  The  charge  was  made  that  Fajardo  had  bought 
up  due-bills  and  treasury  certificates  from  the  soldiers  and  other 
creditors  of  the  government,  at  less  than  their  face  value,  and 
had  presented  them  to  the  oficiales  reales,  realizing  the  full 
amount  on  them,  and  retaining  the  proceeds.  He  was  charged 
with  exacting  large  sums  from  the  Chinese  in  exchange  for 
trading  privileges,  retaining  the  money  himself  instead  of 
putting  it  into  the  treasury.  He  was  said  to  have  forced  loans 
from  the  merchants  in  order  to  make  up  financial  deficits, 
and  to  have  taken  money  out  of  the  treasury,  secretly,  at  night. 
Another  charge  brought  against  him  was  that  of  allowing 
favorites  to  go  out  and  meet  the  incoming  ships  of  the  Chinese, 
thereby  obtaining  for  himself  and  for  them  the  choice  parts  of 


Accusations  Against  Fa  jar  do  263 

the  cargoes  in  advance  of  the  merchants  of  Manila.3  There  is 
no  evidence  that  the  tribunal  was  able  to  put  a  stop  to  these 
abuses. 

Oidor  Alvaro  Messa  y  Lugo,  in  a  letter  written  to  the  king 
on  July  20,  1622,  continued  the  campaign  which  had  been  started 
by  the  audiencia  against  this  governor.  He  claimed  that  Fajardo 
had  sought  to  prevent  officials  and  private  citizens  from  send 
ing  complaints  to  Spain  against  him  by  examining  all  the  out-, 
going  mail  before  it  left  the  colony.  The  oidor  showed  that 
wastefulness,  private  trade,  bribery,  carelessness  in  the  admin 
istration  of  the  exchequer,  neglect  of  shipbuilding,  corruption, 
and  personal  violence  were  among  the  misdeeds  of  this  gov 
ernor.  Messa  reported  that  he  had  tried  unsuccessfully  to 
authorize  the  auditing  of  the  accounts  of  the  galleon  for  two 
successive  years,  in  accordance  with  the  royal  instructions  which 
ordered  that  it  should  be  done  at  the  termination  of  each  voy 
age  by  the  fiscal  and  two  oidores*  Messa  said  that  the  gov 
ernor  feared  to  have  the  colony's  finances  examined  for  it  was 
well  known  that  they  were  in  a  deplorable  state. 

One  instance  of  the  governor's  financial  ingenuity  which  was 
given  by  Messa,  illustrates  the  limitations  placed  by  the  audi 
encia  on  the  governor's  appointing  power.  The  audiencia  relieved 
the  secretary  of  government,  Pedro  Munoz,  of  his  office  upon  the 
expiration  of  his  term,  selling  the  place  to  Diego  de  Rueda  for 
8000  pesos.  Fajardo  dispossessed  Rueda  and  restored  the  office  to 
its  former  incumbent  for  1500  pesos.  The  audiencia 's  action 
in  disposing  of  this  office  without  the  consent  of  the  governor 
was  justified  by  a  law  promulgated  on  November  13,  1581,  or 
dering  that  offices  should  be  bestowed  only  upon  persons  of 
such  qualities  and  attributes  as  met  with  the  approval  of  the 


s  Audiencia  to  Felipe  III,  August  8,  1620,  ibid..  XIX,  87-89;  see  also 
Messa  y  Lugo  to  King,  July  30,  1622,  ibid.,  XX,  161-163. 

4  Messa  y  Lugo  to  the  King,  July  30,  1622,  ibid.,  XX,  162-163;  see 
Rccopilacion,  9-45-3. 


264       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

royal  justices.48*  The  governor  emerged  triumphant  in  this 
contest,  however,  because  it  was  generally  recognized  at 
that  time  that  his  word  should  be  final  in  matters  of  ap 
pointment.  Although  we  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter  that 
the  governor  consulted  with  the  audiencia  when  an  important 
appointment  was  to  be  made,  the  audiencia 's  intervention  in 
matters  of  appointment  depended  largely  on  the  strength  of 
the  tribunal  and  the  relations  existing  between  it  and  the  gov 
ernor.  During  this  administration  the  audiencia  was  notori 
ously  weak  and  harmony  did  not  exist. 

The  memorial  presented  by  Messa  y  Lugo  was  chiefly  con 
cerned  with  the  story  of  his  own  arbitrary  arrest  and  imprison 
ment  at  the  instigation  of  Fajardo  on  trumped-up  charges,  as 
he  alleged.  The  judicial  inquiry  lasted  two  months,  and  it 
furnishes  an  excellent  example  of  the  power  of  a  governor  over 
a  weak  audiencia.  The  occasion  for  the  investigation  had  been 
a  disagreement  between  the  governor  and  the  oidor  over  the 
latter 's  claim  to  act  as  administrator  of  the  property  of  Oidor 
Alcaraz,  who  had  died  in  office.  The  governor,  by  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  magistrate  favorable  to  himself  as  jnez  de  difuntos, 
had  hoped  to  control  the  administration  of  the  property,  since 
Messa  was  under  sentence  of  reside ncia,  and  the  remaining 
magistrates  of  the  audiencia  were  favorable  to  him.  Moreover, 
Fajardo  wished  to  forestall  certain  charges  of  misgovernment 
which  he  knew  that  Messa  was  prepared  to  make  against  him. 
Consequently  the  governor  designated  an  alcalde  of  the  city 
to  conduct  the  rcsidencia.  Messa  was  given  practically  no 
opportunity  to  defend  himself.  His  property  was  sequestrated, 
even  to  his  wife's  clothing.  Seeing  that  he  could  not  obtain 
justice,  he  escaped  from  prison  and  took  refuge  in  a  Dominican 
convent. 

Messa,  from  the  seclusion  of  the  monastery,  challenged  the 


Recopilacion,  8-20-1. 


The  Governor's  Abuses  265 

legality  of  the  governor's  procedure.  According  to  his  conten 
tion,  the  previous  law  authorizing  the  governor  to  name  an 
alcalde  ordinario  to  try  an  oidor,  was  now  a  dead-letter.  Its 
chief  defect  had  been  that  an  alcalde,  who  was  the  creature  of 
the  governor,  would  always  aim  to  render  a  decision  pleasing 
to  his  master.  He  urged  that  the  law  then  in  force  authorized 
the  governor  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  an  oidor,  only  upon 
consulting  the  audiencia,  and  moreover  that  resulting  con 
demnations,  if  they  were  personal  or  corporal,  should  be  con 
firmed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.5  Messa  therefore  claimed 
that  the  governor  had  no  authority  to  proceed  with  this  case 
alone,  since  "those  nearest  (your  Majesty),  as  are  the  auditors 
(oidorcs),  cannot  be  imprisoned  or  proceeded  against  except 
by  your  Majesty  or  the  royal  Council,  or  by  your  order." 

The  oidor  then  proceeded  to  show  the  extent  to  which,  in 
his  opinion,  the  governor  might  intervene  in  tiie  sessions  and 
proceedings  of  the  audiencia.  He  wrote : 

The  president,  in  virtue  of  his  superintendency  over  the  Audiencia, 
may  ordain  to  the  auditors  what  may  be  the  just  and  reasonable  in 
matters  that  pertain  to  the  government  and  its  conservation;  and  even, 
in  the  heated  arguments  that  are  wont  to  arise  between  the  auditors, 
has  authority,  in  case  the  nature  of  the  affair  might  require  it,  to 
retire  each  auditor  to  his  own  house,  until  they  make  up  the  quarrel; 
and,  should  he  deem  it  advisable,  he  may  inform  your  Majesty.  For 
the  ordinance  does  not  say  that  the  president  and  alcaldes  shall  pro 
ceed,  arrest,  sentence  and  execute  justice  in  criminal  cases  affecting  the 
auditors. fi 

This  is  the  interpretation  which  Messa  placed  upon  the  law 
giving  authority  over  the  trial  of  magistrates  of  the  audiencia 
to  the  governor. 

Messa  then  proceeded  to  discuss  other  matters  relative  to 
the  respective  spheres  of  the  governor  and  audiencia.  The  gov 
ernor  had  broken  open  the  chest  of  the  audiencia,  extracting  a 
large  sum  and  spending  it  without  accounting  for  the  expendi- 


*  Recopilacion.  2-16-43  and  44. 

«  Messa  y  Lugo  to  the  King,  op.  cit.,  186. 


266       Audicncia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

ture,  and  without  any  beneficial  results.  He  was  guilty  of  four 
murders,  one  of  his  victims  being  his  wife.  The  audiencia 
should  be  empowered  to  try  him  for  these  crimes,  but  it  lacked 
jurisdiction.  During  his  term  Fajardo  had  exercised  such  abso 
lute  power  that  justice  had  been  paralyzed  and  litigants  were 
holding  back  their  suits  from  trial  because  justice  could  not  be 
obtained  in  the  audiencia.  The  governor  had  sent  from  the 
Islands  more  than  a  million  pesos  in  goods  and  money,  all  of 
which  he  had  obtained  through  fraudulent  and  illegitimate 
means. 

The  governor  had  quarreled  finally  wTith  the  oidores  who 
had  remained  faithful  to  him ;  one  of  these  had  become  in 
capacitated  through  sickness,  while  the  other  had  taken  refuge 
in  a  Jesuit  convent.  The  audiencia  was  thus  dissolved.  The 
governor,  feeling  the  need  of  a  tribunal,  withdrew  the  charges 
against  Messa,  and  ordered  the  latter  to  come  back  and  resume 
his  office.  The  oidor  complied,  but  his  hostility  toward  the 
governor  had  in  no  way  abated.  Messa  concluded  his  memorial 
with  the  request  that  a  visitor  should  be  sent  to  the  colony  to 
investigate  the  charges  which  had  been  made  against  the  gov 
ernor,  and  at  the  same  time  to  restore  the  audiencia  to  its. 
rightful  position  in  the  colony.  He  stated  his  conviction  that 
the  office  of  governor  should  be  abolished,  and  that  the  audi 
encia  should  be  empowered  to  act  in  his  place.  This  belief  he 
justified  by  the  statement  that  the  audiencia  had  already  suc 
cessfully  acted  in  the  capacity  of  governor  and  had  adminis 
tered  affairs  with  great  satisfaction. 

The  power  which  the  governor  had  of  imprisoning  and 
chastising  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  who  dared  to  oppose 
him,  enabled  him  to  emerge  victorious  in  his  struggles  with 
that  body.  He  was  even  able  to  completely  suppress  the 
audiencia.  Nevertheless  he  was  obliged,  through  the  need  of 
the  tribunal  which  he  had  vanquished,  to  restore  it  again,  al 
though  it  was  opposed  to  him.  In  no  less  than  three  cases  gov- 


Defeat  of  the  Aitdiencia  267 

ernors,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  law  requiring  that  there 
should  be  at  least  one  oid&r  of  royal  appointment,  were  obliged 
to  restore  to  the  audiencia  magistrates  who  had  formerly  been 
under  arrest.  Being  in  possession  of  all  the  powers  of  an 
executive,  the  governor  was  usually  able  to  reduce  the  audiencia 
to  subserviency,  unless  the  dispositions  of  the  opposing  oidores 
were  such  that  they  would  not  submit.  On  the  whole,  the 
audiencia  seemed  unable  to  check  the  excesses  of  the  governor, 
by  virtue  of  its  authority,  and  the  oidores  were  obliged  to  con 
fine  themselves  to  protests  and  appeals  to  the  king;  these,  only 
after  years  of  delay,  effected  the  removal  or  punishment  of  the 
governor  and  the  appointment  of  another  to  continue  his 
excesses. 

The  complaints  which  Messa  made  on  this  occasion  resulted 
in  bringing  to  the  Islands  a  visitor  who  conducted  a  lengthy, 
though  somewhat  tardy,  investigation.  Fajardo  was  already 
beyond  the  punishment  of  earthy  kings  and  tribunals.  But  his 
property  was  seized  and  his  heirs  were  fined ;  aside,  however, 
from  the  removal  of  various  of  Fajardo's  subordinates,  the 
government  was  but  little  better  for  the  protestations  and  ap 
peals  made  by  the  audiencia.  The  oidores,  instead  of  obtaining 
the  desired  reform  measures,  were  usually  rewarded  for  oppos 
ing  a  tyrannical  governor  and  appealing  to  the  court  for  sup 
port,  by  a  reprimand  for  quarreling  and  an  admonition  to  be 
quiet  and  peaceful,  to  preserve  harmony,  to  attend  strictly  to 
their  own  affairs,  and  to  abstain  from  interference  with  the 
government.  Indeed,  judging  from  the  many  similar  replies 
which  the  oidores  received  in  answer  to  their  charges  against 
governors,  it  appears  that  the  preservation  of  harmonious 
relations  between  the  officials  of  the  colony  was  much  more 
important  than  good  government.  Usually,  however,  in  these 
struggles  between  the  audiencia  and  the  governor  the  conten 
tions  of  one  side  or  the  other  were  based  on  law  and  justice. 
The  effectiveness  of  the  Spanish  colonial  government  would 


268       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

have  been  greatly  increased  had  the  Council  of  the  Indies  taken 
advantage  of  these  opportunities  to  investigate  the  principles 
at  stake  and  support  the  right  side,  rather  than  by  issuing 
impotent  injunctions  and  remonstrances. 

The  most  significant  controversy  which  ever  occurred  in  the 
Philippines  between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  arose  in 
connection  with  the  banishment  of  Archbishop  Pardo  in  1683. 
It  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  the 
Pardo  controversy,  which  will  be  discussed  again  in  connection 
with  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the  church.  However, 
since  this  episode  involves  certain  incidents  illustrating  import 
ant  phases  of  the  relationship  of  the  governor  and  the  audi 
encia,  it  is  desirable  to  refer  to  it  here  in  considerable  detail. 

The  real  occasion  for  this  conflict  was  the  defiance  of  the 
laws  of  the  royal  ecclesiastical  patronage  by  the  archbishop, 
who  insisted  on  making  ecclesiastical  appointments  without  con 
sulting  the  governor.  The  governor  appealed  to  the  audiencia 
for  support,  and  the  tribunal  exercised  jurisdiction  over  the 
case  on  the  basis  of  its  right  to  try  cases  of  fuerza  and  to  pre 
vent  ecclesiastical  judges  from  infringing  on  the  civil  jurisdic 
tion.  Juan  Sanchez,  the  secretary  of  the  audiencia,  relates 
that,  owing  to  the  interference  of  the  Dominicans  and  Jesuits, 
and  their  harsh  public  criticism  from  the  pulpit  of  the  audi 
encia  and  government,  "the  royal  Audiencia  felt  obliged  to  advise 
its  president,  then  Don  Juan  de  Vargas,  that  he  should  apply  a 
corrective  to  these  acts."7  This  corrective  was  the  banishment  to 
Spain  of  certain  individuals  of  the  Dominican  order  to  answer 
for  their  misdeeds  and  ultimately  the  exile  of  Archbishop 
Pardo  from  the  city.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  Governor  Juan 
tie  Vargas  Hurtado  and  the  audiencia  acted  in  harmony  on 
this  occasion,  presenting  a  solid  front  to  the  ecclesiastical 
power.  When  the  new  governor,  Curuzaelegui,  arrived,  how- 


~  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXIX.  177. 


The  Governor  as  Vice-Patron  269 

ever,  he  forced  the  audiencia  to  ask  pardon  and  absolution 
from  the  archbishop,  which  the  magistrates  did  on  their  knees. 
The  new  governor  disgraced  Vargas  in  the  residencia,  waiving 
for  a  time  the  residencias  of  the  oidorcs.  Pardo  was  recalled 
from  exile,  and  the  audiencia  was  forced  to  legalize  his  restora 
tion  to  his  see  on  October  25,  1684.  Thus  the  new  governor 
and  the  archbishop  triumphed  over  the  combined  forces  of  the 
ex-governor  and  the  audiencia. 

It  is  clear  that  the  power  of  the  new  governor  was  derived 
chiefly  from  his  status  as  royal  vicepatron,  acting  in  con 
junction  with  the  archbishop.  This  power  Vargas  had  for 
merly  employed  in  co-operation  with  the  audiencia,  and  thereby 
both  had  gained  their  victory  over  the  prelate  before  the  ar 
rival  of  the  new  governor.  Curuzaelegui  used  the  same 
authority  to  recall  Pardo ;  and  in  so  doing  he  was  probably  the 
only  governor  in  the  history  of  the  Islands  who  ever  supported 
a  prelate  against  the  advice  of  the  audiencia.  The  combination 
of  a  governor  and  an  audiencia  was  much  more  frequent,  as 
we  shall  see.  The  position  of  the  governor  was  strengthened, 
also,  by  his  commission  to  conduct  the  residencia  of  Vargas, 
and  the  respect  which  the  audiencia  had  for  him  was  increased 
by  the  fact  that  in  judging  the  ex-governor's  misdeeds  he  was 
also  authorized  to  hold  the  oidores  responsible  for  all  their 
official  opinions  and  acts  in  acucrdo  with  the  disgraced  gov 
ernor.8  Another  source  of  the  governor's  strength  was  to  be 
found  in  the  royal  instructions  which  he  carried  with  him 
to  stop  the  quarrels  previously  existing  in  the  colony.  The 
oidorcs  very  prudently  submitted  to  the  new  governor,  and 
therefore,  for  a  time,  they  were  patronized  by  the  latter,  who 
utilized  their  intimate  knowledge  of  local  affairs  to  aid  him 
in  obtaining  control  of  the  government  and  familiarizing  him 
self  with  it.  Meanwhile  he  literally  held  the  residencia  over 
their  heads. 


In  accordance  with  Recopilacion,  5-15-2. 


270       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

The  attitude  of  the  new  governor  toward  the  audiencia 
during  the  first  six  months  may  be  described  as  conciliatory. 
That  he  did  not  act  with  entire  independence  of  it  is  attested 
by  the  fact  that  when  Vargas  appealed  to  the  tribunal  against 
the  ecclesiastical  penalties  imposed  by  the  archbishop,  the 
governor  signed  the  act  ordering  the  absolution  of  his  prede 
cessor.  When  the  archbishop  persisted  in  his  intention  to 
humiliate  Vargas  on  the  ground  that  the  Inquisition  demanded 
such  action,  the  new  governor  threatened  again  to  expel  the 
prelate  if  he  did  not  desist.9  His  pacificatory  efforts  also  re 
sulted  in  a  temporary  cessation  of  the  hostility  between  the 
archbishop  and  the  audiencia ;  he  held  private  conferences  with 
the  oidores,  manifesting  repeatedly  his  determination  to  pro 
ceed  harmoniously  with  them.  As  a  result  of  this  treatment, 
the  magistrates  were  emboldened  to  urge  that  the  return  of 
the  prelate  was  contrary  to  law,  and  inconsistent  with  all 
precedent. 

Finally,  unable  to  resist  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  arch 
bishop,  and  obtaining  advance  information  of  the  royal  con 
demnation  of  the  audiencia  for  its  acts  in  the  banishment  of 
Pardo,  the  governor  arrested,  imprisoned,  and  exiled  the  magis 
trates,  temporarily  reconstituting  the  tribunal  with  local  and 
more  subservient  members.10  Curuzaelegui's  proceedings  were 
thenceforth  as  high-handed  as  they  had  formerly  been  concili 
atory,  and  from  that  time  onward  the  residents  of  the  colony 
were  subjected  to  the  rule  of  an  absolute  governor,  aided  by  an 
unscrupulous  and  vindictive  prelate  and  a  subservient  audi- 


fl  Foreman,  Philippine  Islands,  60;  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXIX, 
208-219. 

!o  The  governor  arrested  and  imprisoned  magistrates  Zalaeta  and 
Lezana  before  the  arrival  of  Valdivia.  Oidor  Viga  was  exiled  to  Samar 
and  Bolivar  was  sent  to  Mariveles.  Both  of  these  last-mentioned 
magistrates  died  in  exile.  By  the  time  Valdivia  arrived  Fiscal  Alanis 
was  the  only  person  connected  with  the  former  audiencia  who  was  left 
to  be  punished.  His  residencia  was  taken  and  his  property  confiscated 
(Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXIX,  135,  231-233,  277,  281-295). 


Defeat  of  the  Audiencia  .       271 

encia.  Just  before  his  imprisonment,  Magistrate  Bolivar,  in  a 
letter  to  the  Minister  of  the  Indies,  described  the  chaos  ex 
istent  in  Manila  as  follows: 

Here  there  is  no  will,  save  that  of  a  governor,  since  he  is  abso 
lute,  we  all  had  to  acquiesce,  under  compulsion  and  pressure,  in  the 
restitution  of  the  archbishop;11  ...  to  state  the  case  in  few  words, 
the  archbishop  does  whatever  suits  his  whim,  without  there  being 
anyone  to  restrain  him. 12 

Fray  Luis  Pimentel,  a  Jesuit,  in  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to 
a  friend,  stated  that  the  arrest  of  the  oidores  by  the  governor 
had  been  inspired  by  personal  spite  and  a  desire  for  revenge. 
He  had  desired  to  punish  magistrates  Viga  and  Bolivar,  par 
ticularly  for  their  opposition  to  him  in  matters  of  administra 
tion  and  in  his  trading-schemes.  The  governor  was  also  said 
to  have  been  actuated  by  a  suspicion  that  these  oidores  had 
formulated  elaborate  charges  of  misgovernment  against  him, 
and  he  desired  to  prevent  these  complaints  from  reaching  the 
king.13 

Pimentel  proceeded  to  relate  that  the  governor  then  found 
himself  embarrassed  without  the  aid  of  an  audiencia,  and  had 
accordingly  formed  another  of  his  own  selection.  This  body 
was  careful  to  execute  the  governor's  will  in  every  particular; 
consequently  there  was  no  check  on  his  misrule.  This  new 
audiencia  approved  all  the  acts  of  the  archbishop  and  refused 
to  entertain  the  appeals  of  the  ex-governor, 

royal  decrees  were  despatched  against  the  preachers  (Jesuits)  who 
zealously  proclaimed  from  the  pulpits  the  arbitrary  and  malicious 
character  of  the  recent  acts,  and  the  Dominicans  alone  had  the  privilege 
to  utter  whatever  absurdities  they  pleased  in  the  pulpits.  .  .  .  No 


11  Bolivar  to  Valdez,  June  15,   1685,  ibid.,   221. 

™  Ibid.,  223. 

is  Pimentel  to  Rodriguez,  February  8,  1688.  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XXXIX,  240.  Pimentel  accused  the  governor  of  scandalous  conduct,  "in 
the  matter  of  chastity,  not  sparing  any  woman,  whatever  may  be  her 
rank  or  condition;  and  he  keeps  some  worthless  women  who  serve  as 
procuresses  for  conveying  to  him  those  whose  society  will  give  him 
most  pleasure."  Pimentel  stated  that  the  archbishop  and  the  friars  of 
the  city  did  nothing  to  check  this  conduct,  but  knowingly  permitted  it. 


Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

authentic  statement  of  the  evil  deeds  of  these  years  can  be  sent 
to  the  court  for  the  scriveners  are  intimidated  and  will  not  give 
official  statements  of  what  occurs,  except  what  may  be  in  favor  of  the 
governor  and  the  archbishop.  Item,  (this)  is  written  in  much  distrust 
and  fear,  on  account  of  the  numerous  spies  who  go  about  prying  into 
and  noting  everything  that  is  done." 

Pimentel  stated  that  the  archbishop,  who  was  a  Dominican, 
had  used  this  rupture  between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia, 
and  the  favor  of  the  governor,  particularly,  as  an  occasion 
and  pretext  for  imposing  on  the  Jesuits  and  Franciscans.  He 
had  deprived  them  of  their  lands  and  parishes,  and  had  ob 
tained  many  favors  for  the  Dominicans  and  Augustinians  at  the 
expense  of  the  rival  orders.  "It  seems  as  if  the  governor  had 
come  to  the  islands,"  Pimentel  wrote,  "for  nothing  else 
than  to  encourage  the  Dominicans  in  their  rebellious  acts,  to 
trample  011  the  la\vs,  to  abolish  recourse  to  the  royal  Audiencia, 
to  sow  dissension,  to  be  a  tyrant,  to  disturb  the  peace,  and  to 
enable  the  archbishop  to  secure  whatever  he  wishes,  even 
though  he  imposes  so  grievous  a  captivity  on  the  common 
wealth."15 

The  Pardo  controversy  and  its  consequences  show  the  ex 
tremes  to  which  a  weakened  audiencia  was  reduced  on  occasion 
by  a  new  governor  wyho  came  to  the  Islands,  armed  with  recent 
royal  decrees  instructing  him  to  bring  about  peace  and  order. 
Curuzaelegui,  assisted  by  the  royal  visitor,  who  bore  instruc 
tions  even  more  recent  than  those  of  the  governor,  imprisoned 
and  exiled  the  oidorcs,  confiscated  their  property  and  brought 
about  their  ruination  and  death.  He  then  appointed  another 
audiencia  of  his  own  choice.  All  these  acts  were  strictly  legal, 
and  in  accordance  with  his  instructions.  The  governor's  con 
duct  before  the  appointment  of  the  visitor  was  more  lenient 
and  tolerant  than  afterwards.  This  shows  that  he  realized 
the  necessity  of  fulfilling  the  royal  will,  the  policies  of  which 


14  Pimentel  to  Rodriguez,  February  8,  1688,  XXXIX,  239-240. 
i->Ibid.,  242-243. 


The  Need  of  an  Audiencia  273 

were  entrusted  to  Valdivia  for  execution,  even  at  the  expense 
of  harmony  with  the  local  tribunal.  Had  he  not  been  assured 
of  the  support  of  the  church  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the 
royal  approval  on  the  other,  as  shown  by  the  commission  of 
Valdivia,  it  is  improbable  that  he  would  have  broken  with  the 
audiencia,  or  would  have  attempted  to  use  his  power  so  ex 
tensively.  The  presence  of  an  audiencia  was  necessary  to  the 
government  of  Curuzaelegui.  This  is  shown  by  his  conciliatory 
attitude  toward  the  tribunal  of  Vargas,  until  he  knew  that  it 
was  under  the  condemnation  of  the  king,  also  by  his  own  act 
in  forming  a  new  one.  This  controversy  clearly  illustrates  the 
extent  to  which  a  governor  might  use  his  power,  and  it  shows, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  indispensable  character  of  the  audiencia, 
even  at  a  time  when  it  was  least  powerful.  Curuzaelegui,  in 
the  name  of  the  king,  completely  obliterated  the  legally  con 
stituted  audiencia,  appointing  another  to  serve  until  it  could 
be  legalized  by  regular  appointment. 

Chronologically  speaking,  the  next  great  struggle  which 
throws  light  on  the  subject  which  we  are  considering,  occurred 
during  the  administration  of  Governor  Bustamante  (1717-1719). 
The  audiencia  was  reduced  to  a  deplorable  state  of  helplessness 
and  inefficiency  on  this  occasion,  and  the  circumstances  sur 
rounding  its  relationship  with  the  governor  were  in  many  ways 
similar  to  those  which  have  been  described.  For  a  period  of 
two  and  a  half  years  antecedent  to  the  coming  of  Bustamante, 
the  government  of  the  Philippines  had  been  nominally  in  the 
hands  of  the  audiencia,  but  in  reality,  under  the  control  of  the 
senior  magistrate,  Torralba.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  Busta 
mante,  after  his  arrival  in  the  Islands,  wras  to  take  the  resi- 
dencia  of  Torralba,  and  this  investigation  led  him  to  make 
serious  charges  against  the  other  magistrates.  In  the  reside Jicia 
which  followed,  the  finances  of  the  colony  were  found  to  be  in 
bad  condition,  and  all  the  officials  of  the  civil  government,  as 
well  as  many  of  the  churchmen,  were  discovered  to  be  deeply 


274      Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

interested  in  private  trade,  to  the  neglect  of  their  duties  and 
to  the  detriment  of  the  government.  Large  amounts  of  money 
were  found  to  have  been  smuggled  without  permission  into  the 
colony  on  the  galleon  from  Mexico.  The  accounts  of  the 
treasury  department  were  discovered  to  have  been  loosely  kept, 
and  many  of  the  officials,  including  magistrates  of  the  audi- 
encia,  were  found  to  be  serving  without  financial  guarantees.16 

Bustamante  immediately  took  steps  to  re-organize  the  gov 
ernment  and  to  place  the  finances  of  the  colony  on  a  sound 
footing.  He  put  a  stop  to  the  smuggling,  forced  the  merchants 
to  pay  the  authorized  duties,  and  imposed  fines  on  those  who 
had  been  guilty  of  negligence  and  misconduct.  At  the  end  of 
six  months  the  efforts  of  Bustamante  had  netted  a  sum  of 
293,000  pesos  to  the  royal  treasury.  His  successful  efforts 
towards  clearing  up  the  finances  of  the  colony,  making  every 
person  pay  his  just  dues  without  regard  to  position,  rank,  or 
affiliation,  and  the  seeming  harshness  of  his  methods  incurred 
general  hostility  and  contributed  largely  to  his  downfall.17 

His  investigation  of  the  finances  was  said  to  have  revealed  a 
shortage  of  over  700,000  pesos,  for  which  he  held  Torralba  and 
the  other  magistrates  responsible,  putting  most  of  the  blame, 
however,  on  Torralba.  All  but  one  of  the  magistrates  were 
arrested  and  incarcerated  in  Fort  Santiago.  Before  this  was 
done,  however,  Bustamante  asked  the  advice  of  the  archbishop, 


ic  Torralba  to  the  King,  June  23,  1718,  A.  I.,  68-4-18.  When  Governor 
Bustamante  arrived  in  Manila  in  1717,  Torralba's  services  as  oidor  and 
temporary  governor,  extending  over  a  period  of  eight  years,  were  in 
vestigated.  Wholesale  bribery  was  the  leading  charge  against  him.  He 
had  levied  blackmail  on  alcaldes  mayores,  cncomenderos,  and  Chinese 
and  Spanish  merchants.  He  was  also  charged  with  the  misuse  of  gov 
ernment  funds,  and  was  held  responsible  for  large  deficits.  It  was 
said  that  he  had  sent  his  wife  to  Macao  with  most  of  this  ill-gotten 
money.  In  his  residcncia  he  was  fined  120,000  pesos,  exiled  forever 
from  Madrid,  Manila  and  New  Spain,  and  was  reduced  subsequently  to 
such  poverty  that  he  was  compelled  to  beg.  He  died  a  pauper  in  the 
hospital  of  San  Juan  de  Dios,  in  Cavite,  in  1736. 

17  Government  of  Bustamante,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIV,  151;  this 
account  (pages  148-165)  is  a  summary  of  Concepcion,  Historia  general, 
IX,  183-424;  see  also  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  410-429. 


Bustamante  and  the  Audiencia  275 

the  religious  corporations,  and  the  universities,  as  to  what  steps 
he  should  take  in  the  matter.  He  recognized  that  he  would  be 
seriously  embarrassed  without  an  audiencia,  but  the  investiga 
tions  which  he  had  made  showed  that  all  of  the  oidores  were 
guilty  of  misappropriation  of  the  government  funds.  Would 
he  be  justified  in  forming  an  audiencia  of  his  own  selection, 
composed  of  duly  qualified  lawyers,  with  one  minister  of  royal 
designation  remaining?  It  was  his  opinion  that  the  presence 
of  one  regularly  appointed  magistrate  would  lend  legality  to 
the  entire  tribunal,  so  he  asked  advice  as  to  which  of  the  three 
oidores  would  be  most  suitable  to  retain.  He  cited  as  a  prece 
dent  in  favor  of  his  reconstitution  of  the  audiencia  the  action 
of  Governor  Curuzaelegui  in  1687  and  1688  when  he  exiled  and 
imprisoned  the  oidores  and  reformed  the  audiencia  with  his 
own  appointees.  Bustamante  proposed  to  do  exactly  what 
Curuzaelegui  had  done,  that  is,  to  act  as  president  himself, 
appointing  the  fiscal  as  oidor,  and  designating  a  duly  qualified 
lawyer  and  an  assistant  fiscal  to  fill  the  other  vacant  places. 
Bustamante  expressed  an  apparently  sincere  desire  to  do  justice 
to  all.  He  desired,  particularly,  that  the  administration  of 
justice  in  the  courts  should  be  allowed  to  proceed  without  in 
terruption  and  without  that  loss  to  the  commonwealth  which 
wrould  come  from  the  absence  of  a  tribunal.18 

The  replies  given  by  the  orders  on  this  occasion  involve 
important  laws  and  principles  which  underlie  the  nature  of  the 
audiencia  and  its  relation  to  the  governorship.  The  archbishop, 
in  a  subsequent  report  to  the  king  on  the  government  of 
Bustamante,  stated  that  all  the  religious  authorities  in  the 
colony  advised  the  governor  against  the  destruction  of  the 
audiencia,  and  questioned  the  authority  of  the  prelate  to  con 
stitute  another.10  It  seems,  however,  from  an  investigation  of 


is  Consulta  del  gobiemo  dc  Filipinos  so~bre  la  formation  de  aquella 
audiencia,  2  d-e  Mayo  de  1718,  Zulueta  Mss.,  Manila. 

19  Report  of  Archbishop  de  la  Cuesta  on  the  Bustamante  Affair, 
June  28,  1720,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIV,  182-195. 


276       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

the  letters,  that  the  Jesuits  counseled  the  governor  in  favor  of 
the  proposed  action.  The  reasoning  of  the  Jesuit  theologians 
was  as  follows :  there  should  be  retained  in  the  Philippines, 
according  to  the  Recopilacion  de  Indias?"  four  old-ores  and  a 
fiscal  for  the  proper  administration  of  justice,  and  if  the  fiscal 
were  the  only  remaining  member  of  the  old  audiencia  he  would 
become  an  oid-or  in  case  of  a  vacancy,  by  virtue  of  the  recog 
nized  law.21  Owing  to  the  multitudinous  duties  of  the  oidores 
and  to  the  great  importance  of  the  audiencia,  great  harm 
would  arise  if  there  were  not  enough  magistrates.  Since  the 
governor's  jurisdiction  extended  to  all  departments  of  govern 
ment,  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Jesuits  that  it  was  incumbent 
on  him  to  take  such  steps  as  might  seem  necessary  for  the 
preservation  of  the  government.  This  was  specially  imperative 
since  it  was  his  duty  to  see  that  there  was  no  delay  or  neglect 
in  the  administration  of  justice.  Inasmuch  as  the  audiencia 
was  indispensable  to  him  as  vicepatron  in  its  jurisdiction 
over  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  because  of  its  consultative  powers 
in  all  affairs  of  government  and  finance,  the  governor  should 
have  the  right  to  create  an  audiencia,  if  one  did  not  exist,  or 
if  the  members  who  were  regularly  constituted  by  royal  ap 
pointment  were  incapacitated  from  service.22 

The  opinion  of  the  Dominicans  of  the  University  of  Santo 
Tomas  differed  widely  from  that  advanced  by  the  Jesuits. 
Their  advice  coincided  with  that  of  the  archbishop,  being  to 
the  effect  that  it  would  not  be  convenient  to  qualify  one  of  the 
ministers  alone,  but  that  all  of  them  should  be  restored  to  the 
audiencia.  This  meant  that  Bustamante  should  recede  from  his 
position,  remove  all  the  oidores  from  prison,  and  accept  them 
as  an  audiencia.  If  the  three  oidores  deserved  punishment  it 
would  be  unfair  to  the  remaining  two  magistrates  to  exempt 


•-o  Recopilacion,   2-15-11. 

21  Ibid.,  2-16-29. 

22  Contestation  de  la  Companla  dc  Jesus.  G  de  Mayo  de  1718,  Zulueta 
Mss.,  Manila. 


Advisory  Functions  277 

one,  and  such  action  would  lay  the  governor  open  to  charges 
of  inconsistency  and  favoritism.  The  Dominicans  contended 
that  only  the  king  in  council  could  suspend  or  remove  oidores, 
and  that  such  power  \vas  not  given  to  any  other  authority,  not 
even  to  a  viceroy.23  Though 

in  Sicily  and  Naples  this  right  is  granted,  in  the  Indies  the  contrary 
is  true,  because  only  the  king  that  appointed  them  may  suspend  them, 
and  it  is  commanded  that  the  viceroys  must  not  interfere  with  or  im 
pede  their  jurisdiction. -± 

The  Dominicans  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  governor  had 
authority  to  discipline  the  oidores,  but  in  so  doing  he  could  not 
go  so  far  as  to  remove  them  from  the  tribunal  unless  com 
manded  to  do  so  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Whatever  disci 
plinary  action  the  governor  might  decide  on,  it  should  not  be 
taken  on  his  own  authority,  but  in  the  execution  of  the  orders 
of  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 

This  opinion,  the  Dominicans  alleged,  was  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  the  Indies.-5  They  cited,  in  support  of  their 
argument,  an  instance  in  which  the  king  reproved  Galvez,  the 
Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  because,  without  the  authority  of  the 
Council,  Galvez  had  suspended  a  magistrate  of  the  Audiencia 
of  Mexico,  whom  he  should  have  honored  and  to  "whom  he 
should  have  accorded  the  treatment  of  a  colleague."26  The 
Dominicans  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
Islands  and  the  welfare  of  the  government  depended  011  the 
•\udiencia,  and  though  it  might  be  desirable  to  remove  the 
o-id ores  for  personal  guilt,  it  could  not  be  done  in  this  case 
without  wrecking  the  entire  government.  The  king,  himself, 


23  Recopilacion,  2-16-93. 

24  Opinion  de  la  Universidad  de  Santo   Tomds,  9  de  Mayo  de  1718, 
Zulueta  Mss.,  Manila. 

23  Recopilacion,  2-16-44. 

2G  The  legal  phases  of  this  question  together  with  the  opinions  of  the 
royal  fiscal  an,d  the  leading  councillors  are  set  forth  in  the  consulta  of 
the  Council  of  the  Indies  of  March  18,  1720,  A.  I.,  68-2-8.  In  this  con- 
sulta  an  effort  is  made  to  fix  responsibility  for  the  murder  of  the  gov 
ernor,  and  to  determine  the  legality  of  his  acts. 


278       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

had  shown  respect  for  the  inviolability  of  the  audiencia  when, 
in  1710,  he  had  judged  all  the  ministers  to  be  equally  guilty 
of  not  having  fulfilled  the  laws  and  ordinances  on  the  occa 
sion  of  the  coming  to  the  Islands  of  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,27 
satisfying  himself  with  the  removal  of  the  decano  only  and 
allowing  the  other  magistrates  to  remain. 

Disregarding  the  advice  of  this  learned  body,  turning  a 
deaf  ear  to  the  protestations  of  the  archbishop,  and  heeding 
only  the  counsel  of  the  Jesuits,  wThich  was  more  favorable  to 
his  wishes,  Bustamante  proceeded  to  execute  his  own  will  in  a 
manner  which  proved  distasteful  even  to  the  order  whose  advice 
he  was  following.28  He  arrested  and  imprisoned  the  guilty 
magistrates  and  created  a  new  tribunal  out  of  his  own  clientele, 
leaving  only  Villa,  a  former  magistrate,  in  office.  The  latter 
protested  against  the  action  of  the  governor,  and  retired  to  the 
convent  of  Guadalupe,  near  Pasig.  Informed  that  there  was  a 
conspiracy  against  his  life  and  needing  the  counsel  of  some  per 
son,  or  persons,  on  whom  he  could  rely,  Bustamante  w^as  well- 
nigh  desperate.  His  government,  as  it  then  stood,  lacked  the 
complexity  of  legality  which  the  presence  of  one  oid or  of  royal 


27  This  refers  to  the  reception  of  the  French  papal  delegate,  Touron, 
who  came  to  the  Islands  to  inspect  the  archbishopric,   and   who  was 
received  by  the  audiencia  without  the  authority  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.     This  will  be  treated  further  in  Chapter  X  of  this  book. 

28  Fr.  Diego  de  Otazo,  the  Jesuit  confessor  of  Bustamante,  in  a  let 
ter  to  his  superior,  described  the  power  of  the  governor  and  his  treat 
ment  of  the  audiencia  as  follows:     "Here,  my  father,"  he  wrote,  "the 
governor  takes  away  and  establishes,  gives,  commands,  unmakes  and 
makes    more    despotically    than    does    the    king    himself;    .    .    .   Royal 
decrees  are  not  sufficient;  for  either  he  hides  them,  or  he  does  not  ful 
fill  them  as  he  ought.     The  Audiencia  does  not  serve  [as  a  check]   on 
him,  for  he  suppresses  and  he  establishes  it,  when  and  how  he  pleases; 
nor  do  other  bodies,  whether  chapters  or  [religious]  communities  (dare 
to  oppose  him),    .    .    .   for  he  does  the  same  thing  [with  them].     And 
never  do  there  lack  pretexts  for  doing  thus,  even  though  such  bodies 
are  appointed  by  the  king;    and  with  the  pretext  that  account  of  the 
matter  has  already  been  rendered  to  Madrid,  what  he  has  begun  re 
mains  permanently  done,  or  else  he  proceeds  to  change  it,  as  seems 
good  to  him."      (Letter  of  Diego  de  Otazo,  S.  J.,  November  19,   1719, 
Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIV,  175.) 


The  Suppression  of  the  Audicncia  279 

nomination  would  have  given  it.  In  order  to  remedy  this  de- 
feet  he  released  Torralba,  the  guiltiest  of  the  former  magis 
trates,  and  the  man  under  arrest  for  the  defalcation  of  700,000 
pesos  of  the  king's  revenue.  Torralba 's  crimes  had  been 
notorious,  and  the  act  of  Bustamante  in  associating  himself 
with  a  person  of  the  unsavory  reputation  and  the  unpopularity 
of  Torralba  not  only  divorced  him  from  whatever  popular 
sympathy  he  might  have  had  among  the  residents  of  the  colony, 
but  it  aroused  the  hostility  and  antagonism  of  the  Jesuits  who 
had  been  heretofore  the  governor's  friends.  Aside  from  the 
unfortunate  character  of  the  act,  it  was  also  illegal,  being  con 
trary  to  the  law  which  directed  that  in  case  an  oidor  were 
suspended  from  his  place  he  should  not  be  restored  without  the 
consent  of  the  king  and  the  Council  of  the  Indies.29 

The  newly  constituted  audiencia  busied  itself  at  once  with 
the  task  of  government.  Archbishop  de  la  Cuesta,  among 
others,  questioned  the  legality  of  the  tribunal's  opposition  to 
the  excommunication  of  its  members.  He  was  arrested  by  the 
governor,  and  then  arose  the  contest  which  culminated  in  the 
murder  of  Bustamante,  in  the  suppression  of  his  audiencia  and 
in  the  first  officially  recognized  government  by  a  prelate  in  the 
Philippines.  The  archbishop  reappointed  all  the  former 
magistrates  to  office,  with  the  exception  of  Torralba,  and  the 
misdeeds  of  the  government  of  Bustamante  were  saddled  upon 
the  ex-magistrate. 

Two  noteworthy  considerations  stand  out  prominently  in 
connection  with  this  struggle ;  first,  the  influence  of  the  gov 
ernor  over  the  audiencia,  and  his  power  to  deprive  regularly 
appointed  magistrates  of  their  positions  and  to  constitute  a 
new  audiencia  if  he  chose,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  of 
the  laws,  and,  second,  the  complete  control  by  a  governor  over 
an  audiencia  which  he  had  created.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
state  that  the  Madrid  government  discredited  all  the  later  acts 


29  Recopilacion,  2-16-93. 


280       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

of  Bustamante 's  administration,  including  the  recall  of  Tor 
ralba,  who  was  a  self-confessed  criminal  under  arrest,  when  re 
stored  by  the  governor.  There  is  nothing  to  show,  however, 
that  the  .king  disapproved  of  the  acts  of  Bustamaiite  in  creat 
ing  a  new  audiencia,  unless  it  were  the  royal  approval  of 
Cuesta's  act  of  reconstituting  the  old  tribunal.  Torralba,  in 
his  residencies,  was  made  to  suffer  for  all  the  misdeeds  of  his 
government  (in  reality  that  of  the  audiencia,  Torralba  being 
decano,  1715-1717),  as  well  as  for  those  of  Bustamante  (1717- 
1719). 

The  audiencia,  after  it  had  been  reconstituted  by  the  arch 
bishop-governor,  neglected  to  investigate  the  causes  of  the  gov 
ernor's  death,  alleging  as  a  reason  that 

this  proceeding  will  greatly  disturb  the  community;  that  to  proceed 
against  these  persons  will  be  to  cast  odium  on  and  grieve  nearly  all 
the  citizens,  since  the  commotion  was  so  general;  that  all  those  who 
went  out  on  that  occasion  did  so  "in  defense  of  the  ecclesiastical  im 
munity,  the  preservation  of  this  city,  the  self-defense  of  its  inhabi 
tants,  and  the  reputation  of  the  [Spanish]  nation;"  and  that  to  carry 
out  this  plan  would  be  likely  to  cause  some  disturbance  of  the  public 
peace.3" 

In  a  word,  the  influence  of  the  archbishop  was  sufficient  to 
keep  the  audiencia  from  undertaking  a  formal  investigation  of 
the  causes  of  the  governor's  death.  It  was  quite  generally 
recognized  that  the  murder  had  been  committed  in  the  interests 
of  the  prelate,  probably  by  an  assassin  who  had  been  in  his  pay, 
or  in  that  of  his  friends,  the  Jesuits.  This  is  another  illustra 
tion  of  the  subserviency  of  the  audiencia  to  the  governing 
power,  on  this  occasion  a  churchman,  who  had  actively  partici 
pated  in  the  removal  of  his  predecessor. 

An  interesting  though  ineffective  protest  was  made  by  the 
audiencia  against  the  appointment  of  Jose  Basco  y  Vargas  as 
Governor  of  the  Philippines  in  1778.  A  communication  was 


-"Government  of  Bustamante  (from  Concepcion),  Blair  and  Robert 
son,  XLIV,  161. 


Opposition  to  Basco  y  Vargas  281 

sent  to  the  court  describing  the  abject  state  into  which  the 
king  had  degraded  the  audiencia  by  subordinating  it  to  a  man 
whose  title  and  rank  as  Captain  of  Frigate  gave  him  only  the 
right  to  be  addressed  as  You,  while  each  of  the  magistrates 
enjoyed  the  title  of  Lordship.  The  Council  rejected  the  com 
plaint  as  an  absurdity,  after  which  certain  oidores  conspired 
to  bring  charges  against  Basco  y  Vargas,  to  arrest  him  and 
to  make  Sarrio  governor.  The  latter  had  been  ad  interim  gov 
ernor  after  the  death  of  Anda,  and  he  was  at  that  time  the 
beneficiary  of  the  title  and  position  of  segundo  cabo,  or  second  in 
command  of  the  king's  forces  in  the  Islands.  Sarrio  refused  to 
join  the  magistrates  in  their  revolt  against  the  governor.  Basco 
y  Vargas  was  informed  of  their  treason,  and  it  is  significant 
that  he  complied  with  the  royal  laws,  not  by  attempting  to 
punish  the  offenders  himself,  but  by  sending  the  recalcitrant 
magistrates  to  Spain  where  they  were  dealt  with  by  the  Council 
of  the  Indies.31 

This  was  only  a  prelude  to  the  discord  which  existed 
throughout  the  administration  of  this  able  governor.  The  king 
was  obliged  to  issue  special  cedulas  on  various  occasions,  order 
ing  a  cessation  of  the  perpetual  discord/12  Basco  y  Vargas 
formed  a  society  for  the  advancement  of  the  economic  interests 
of  the  Islands,33  and  in  that,  as  well  as  in  his  successful  organ 
ization  of  the  profitable  tobacco  monopoly,  he  was  opposed  by 
the  audiencia.  The  tribunal  claimed  that  the  governor  was 
limiting  its  sphere  of  authority  in  inaugurating  these  reforms. u 
Basco  y  Vargas  recommended  and  brought  about  the  separation 
of  the  superintendency  of  real  hacienda  from  the  rest  of  the 
government.  This  the  audiencia  also  opposed,  but  in  the  con- 


si  Recopilacii'm.  2-16-43,  44,  46. 

32  King  to  Basco  y  Vargas,  December  10,  1783,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 

33  Sociedad  de  los  Amigos  del  Pain,  an  economic,  commercial,  and 
agricultural  society  established  in  the  Philippines  by  Governor  Basco 
y  Vargas  in  1780. — Original  autos  and  plans  for  society  in  A.  I.,  106-1-14. 

34  Audiencia  to  the  King,  December  17,  1788,  A.  I.,  106-4-17. 


282       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

test  over  jurisdiction  which  ensued  between  the  governor  and 
the  intendant,  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  acted  in  com 
plete  harmony,  because  this  new  official  threatened  their  mutual 
interests  and  prerogatives.35 

Outlawry  and  highway  robbery  became  so  common  through 
out  the  Islands  during  the  term  of  Basco  y  Vargas  that  the 
governor  appointed  prosecutors,  sheriffs,  and  judges-extraordi 
nary  to  assist  in  the  preservation  of  order,  which  the  alcaldes 
mayores  were  not  able  to  accomplish  by  themselves.  The  audi 
encia,  feeling  that  this  was  a  grave  intrusion  upon  its  pre 
rogatives,  appealed  to  the  king  and  succeeded  in  bringing  the 
sovereign  displeasure  upon  the  head  of  the  governor.  The 
royal  cedula  stated  that  there  was  no  need  of  these  additional 
officials.  The  judicial  machinery  which  had  been  provided  for 
the  Philippines  from  the  beginning  was  sufficient.  The  gov 
ernor  was  warned,  furthermore,  to  abstain  from  meddling  with 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia.36  This  case  confirms  the 
statement  already  made  in  this  treatise  that  during  this  period 
and,  in  fact,  after  the  establishment  of  the  regency  in  1776, 
the  governor  exercised  a  diminished  authority  in  judicial  affairs. 
When  Basco  y  Vargas  took  his  office  as  governor  of  the  Philip 
pine  Islands,  he  was  obliged  to  subscribe  to  two  oaths,  one  as 
governor,  and  the  other  as  president  of  the  audiencia,  but  he 
was  warned  by  a  special  decree  of  the  king  to  keep  from  con 
fusing  these  two  functions  as  former  governors  had  done.37 

Many  disagreements  took  place  between  the  audiencia  and 
Governor  Marquina,  who  succeeded  Basco  y  Vargas.  Marquina 
quarreled  with  the  audiencia  over  almost  every  act  of  govern 
ment  in  which  he  had  relations  with  the  tribunal.  Marquina 
was  said  to  have  repeatedly  disregarded  the  acuerdo  and  to 


35  Expedientes  sobre  establecimiento  de  intendencias  y  subintenden- 
citis  en  Filipinas,  A.  I.,  105-1-17,  107-5-18,  105-3-5,  146-6113. 
scKing  to  the  Audiencia,  August  1,  1788,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 
ST  King  to  Basco  y  Vargas,  October  9,  1777,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 


Marquina  and  the  Audiencia  283 

have  done  as  he  pleased  in  matters  wherein  the  audiencia  had 
been  or  should  have  been  consulted.  There  was  a  bitter  con 
test  in  1789,  shortly  after  the  arrival  of  this  governor,  because 
he  had  excused  various  officials  of  real  hacienda  from  appear 
ing  when  summoned  to  the  audiencia  to  serve  as  witnesses. 
Marquina  did  this,  he  claimed,  because  they  were  needed  in  the 
provinces  as  financial  agents,  and  because  their  absence  from 
their  posts  of  duty  would  entail  a  grave  loss  to  the  govern 
ment.  The  audiencia  solved  the  matter  by  forwarding  all  the 
correspondence  relative  to  these  cases  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.  It  may  be  said  that  Marquina,  in  exempting  these  wit 
nesses,  was  acting  in  his  capacity  as  president  of  the  audiencia, 
but  in  his  solicitude  that  no  loss  should  occur  to  the  royal 
exchequer  he  was  acting  as  superintendent  of  real  hacienda, 
which  was  within  his  authority.38 

In  1790  Marquina  recommended  the  abolition  of  the  audi 
encia  on  the  grounds  that  its  continued  presence  constituted 
an  obstruction  to  the  harmonious  working  of  the  machinery  of 
government.  He  said  that  the  tribunal  was  a  powerful  weapon 
in  the  hands  of  men  who  used  it  for  their  own  personal  ad 
vancement.  In  the  place  of  an  audiencia  he  suggested  the  sub 
stitution  of  three  asesores,  one  for  civil  and  criminal  cases, 
one  for  real  hacienda,  and  another  for  commerce  and  the  con- 
sulado.  These  asesores  would  have  jurisdiction  over  the  cases 
which  corresponded  to  these  three  departments.  This  scheme, 
he  believed,  would  effectively  provide  for  all  the  judicial  cases 
arising  in  the  Islands.39  To  this  scheme,  however,  the  Council 
paid  no  heed. 

Considerable  attention  has  been  given  in  another  chapter 
to  the  charges  made  by  the  audiencia  against  Marquina  at  the 
time  of  his  residencia.  These  complaints  show  that  a  state  of 


Audiencia  to  the  King,  December  23,  1789,  A.  I.,  106-4-17. 
Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  II,  324,  note. 


284      Audiencia  and  Governor:  Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

-continual  disagreement  had  existed  between  these  two  authori 
ties  throughout  the  entire  term  of  the  governor,  and  the  bring 
ing  of  these  charges  was  instrumental  in  making  Marquina 
imdergo  a  very  strict  investigation.  Personal  jealousy  was  110 
small  factor  in  these  continual  recriminations.  At  no  subse 
quent  date,  however,  were  the  large  issues  at  stake  which  were 
characteristic  of  the  struggle  between  the  audiencia  and  the 
governor  at  the  time  of  Fajardo,  Curuzaelegui,  and  Busta- 
mante.  Those  were  death-struggles  011  the  issue  of  whether  the 
audiencia  should  be  an  independent  tribunal  or  whether  it 
should  be  subservient  and  subject  to  the  governor.  During 
those  struggles  the  tribunal  was,  momentarily  suppressed,  or 
converted  into  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  governor. 
But  these  were  exceptional  cases,  and  during  the  greater  part 
of  the  long  period  of  three  hundred  years  the  relations  be 
tween  the  audiencia  and  the  executive  were  not  so  discordant 
as  they  would  seem  to  have  been,  judging  by  the  instances 
cited  in  this  chapter.  The  audiencia,  on  all  occasions  of  dis 
pute  with  the  governor,  \vas  able  to  offer  a  formidable  resist 
ance  to  his  so-called  encroachments  on  the  prerogatives  of  the 
tribunal.  Although  the  governor,  on  most  of  the  occasions 
noted  above,  occupied  the  stronger  position,  owing  to  his  more 
recent  instructions,  the  support  given  to  him  by  the  church, 
and  his  control  of  the  residencias  of  the  magistrates,  neverthe 
less  it  may  be  said  that  either  authority  was  sufficiently  power 
ful  and  independent  to  be  respected  as  an  antagonist  by  the 
other,  and  each  was  indispensable  to  the  other. 

These  disagreements  have  been  discussed  in  the  foregoing 
pages  largely  from  the  view-point  of  the  audiencia.  Practi 
cally  all  the  charges  and  complaints  which  have  been  cited 
were  made  in  behalf  of  the  audiencia,  and  these  show  the 
magistrates  in  almost  all  cases  to  have  been  acting  in  defense 
of  their  rights  against  usurpation  and  tyranny.  Fairness  de 
mands,  however,  that  the  other  side  should  be  presented  in  the 


Criticisms  of  the  Audiencia  285 

same  manner.40  Reference  will  now  be  made  to  a  few  of  the  many 
memorials  heretofore  unquoted,  which  were  sent  by  various  gov 
ernors  in  protest  against  the  alleged  excesses  of  the  audiencia. 

As  a  first  instance  we  may  note  the  criticisms  which  Gov 
ernor  Gomez  Perez  Dasmarinas  made  of  the  first  audiencia 
which  served  from  1584  to  1589.  We  shall  also  consider  the 
complaints  which  Dasmariiias  made  against  Pedro  de  Rojas, 
former  oidor  and  later  tcniente  and  asesor  of  that  governor 
(1589-1593).  Dasmarinas  came  to  the  colony  shortly  after  the 
first  audiencia  had  been  suppressed  and  from  his  correspond 
ence  one  may  estimate  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  tribunal 
which  had  been  recently  removed.  The  governor  wrote  as 
follows : 

As  the  royal  Audiencia  was  here  so  haughty  and  domineering,  he 
(Pedro  de  Rojas)  retains  that  authority  and  harshness,  with  which  he 
tries  to  reduce  all  others  as  his  vassals.  In  the  matters  of  justice 
that  he  discusses,  he  is  unable  to  be  impartial,  but  is  in  many  matters 
very  biased.  This  is  because  of  his  trading  and  trafficking,  which  the 
president  and  all  the  auditors  (oidores)  carried  on  from  the  time  of 
their  arrival — and  with  so  great  avidity,  trying  to  secure  it  all  to  them 
selves,  that  I  find  no  rich  men  here  beside  them.  This  is  the  reason 
why  Rojas  .  .  .  and  the  auditors  opposed  the  pancada  in  order  that 
the  consignments  of  money  sent  by  them  to  China  might  not  be  known 
— which,  at  last,  have  come  to  light.*1 

The  governor  charged  the  audiencia,  moreover,  with  having 
opposed  the  three  per  cent  tax  levied  for  the  construction  of 
the  city  wall.  Indeed,  he  accused  the  magistrates  of  having 
influenced  the  friars  to  oppose  all  his  acts  as  governor.  He 
referred  to  the  commercial  excesses  of  the  oidores,  saying: 
"If  the  matter  of  inspection  and  the  residencia  held  here  had 
fallen  to  mv  order  and  commission,  as  it  fell  to  that  of  the  Vice- 


4d  For  further  testimony  bearing  upon  the  formative  period  of  the 
audiencia's  history,  see  Chapter  II  ot  this  volume,  wherein  are  described 
the  conflicts  attendant  on  the  establishment  of  the  audiencia  in  the 
Philippines. 

41  Dasmarinas  to  Felipe  II,  June  6,  1592,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VIII, 


286       Audicncia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

roy  of  Nueva  Espafia,  I  would  have  proved  to  your  Majesty 
the  investments  of  past  years."  He  concluded  with  the  state 
ment  that  Rojas  had  been  so  busy  with  gain  that  he  had  been 
unable  to  attend  to  his  other  duties;  he  was  "puffed  up  with 
the  authority  and  name  of  auditor"  (i.  e.,  oidor}.  He  protested 
against  the  transfer  of  Rojas  to  an  office  in  Mexico,  "for,"  he 
wrote,  "such  men  go  delighted  with  their  interests  and  gains 
from  trade  here,  they  are  fettered  and  biased  by  their  relations 
with  the  trade  of  this  country." 

Thus  we  see  that  even  this  early  in  the  history  of  the 
Islands,  the  oidores  as  well  as  the  governors  were  accused  of  a 
predominating  interest  in  commercial  affairs. 

Governor  Pedro  de  Acufia  recommended  the  suppression  of 
the  audiencia  in  1604,  although  he  said  that  he  had  had  no 
serious  trouble  with  that  tribunal.  His  chief  reason  in  favor 
ing  its  removal  was  that  an  appreciable  saving  would  be  real 
ized  thereby.  The  audiencia  was,  moreover,  very  unpopular  in 
Manila.  He  alleged  that  the  name  of  oidor  was  so  odious  that 
it  was  in  itself  an  offense.  He  stated  that  affairs  had  come 
to  such  a  pass  that 

because  I,  in  conformity  to  what  your  Majesty  has  ordered,  have  at 
tempted  to  maintain  and  have  maintained  amicable  relations  with  the 
auditors;  and  have  shown,  on  various  occasions,  more  patience  and 
endurance  than  the  people  considered  right;  and  more  than  seemed 
fitting  to  my  situation,  in  order  not  to  give  rise  to  scandal;  some 
have  conceived  hatred  for  me,  publicly  saying  that  ...  I  was  neg 
lecting  to  look  after  them,  and  that  I  could  correct  the  evil  which 
the  Audiencia  was  doing.  But  as  I  cannot  do  that,  it  has  seemed  to  me 
the  best  means  to  let  the  public  see  that  there  was  good  feeling  be 
tween  me  and  the  Audiencia.42 

Here  we  have  the  case  of  a  governor,  who,  in  order  to  get 
along  in  harmony  with  a  quarrelsome  and  unpopular  audiencia, 
gave  way  to  it  on  many  occasions,  and  even  incurred  the  dis 
pleasure  of  the  residents  of  the  colony  on  account  of  what 


42  Acufia  to  Felipe  III,  July  15,  1604,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIII,  232. 


Criticisms  of  the  Audiencia  287 

seemed  to  them  to  be  the  governor's  easy-going  attitude.  His 
zeal  for  the  king's  service,  as  he  expressed  it,  moved  him  to 
recommend  the  abolition  of  the  tribunal.  He  said  that  the 
audiencia  would  not  be  missed  if  it  were  removed,  since  there 
were  only  twelve  hundred  residents  in  the  colony  and  there 
were  few  cases  to  be  tried.  Most  of  the  suits  arising  in  the 
Islands  could  be  adjudicated  by  the  alcaldes  ordinarios  and 
appeals  could  be  sent  to  Mexico.  The  acuerdo,  or  administra 
tive  session,  Acuria  alleged,  existed  in  name  only. 

Acuria  made  practically  the  same  charges  that  have  been 
so  often  repeated  already  in  this  chapter.  The  magistrates  had 
interfered  in  the  appointment  of  officials,  which  the  governor 
claimed  as  his  sole  prerogative.  Each  magistrate  was  accom 
panied  on  his  journey  to  the  Islands  by  a  vast  company  of 
relatives  and  dependents,  who  came  to  get  rich.  These  persons 
ultimately  monopolized  all  the  offices.  Notwithstanding  the 
king's  orders  which  forbade  that  offices  should  be  held  by  rela 
tives  of  oid-ores,  the  governor  was  placed  in  such  a  position 
that  if  he  did  not  allow  these  persons  to  hold  office,  the  magis 
trates  would  take  revenge  by  opposing  him  at  every  turn,  thus 
ruining  the  success  of  his  administration.43  The  same  was  true 
of  trade,  .for  these  relatives  had  to  live,  and  if  the  government 
could  not  support  them,  they  had  to  be  assigned  privileges  and 
advantages  in  trade,  which  the  oidores  by  virtue  of  their  official 
positions  could  guarantee.44 


43  Acuna  continued  as  follows:    "If  the  governors  do  not  consent  to 
this    (the  appointment   of    the    relatives    and   dependents   of    oidores), 
the  auditors  dislike  them,  and  seek  means  and  expedients  whereby  the 
worthy  persons  to  whom  the  said  offices  and  livings  are  given  shall  not 
be  received  therein.     Accordingly  the  governors,  in  order  not  to  dis 
please   the   auditors,   give    up   their  claims    and   dare   not    insist   upon 
them"  (ibid.,  234). 

44  Acuna    further   commented    on   their    commercial    abuses:      "The 
said  creatures  and  connections  of  the  said  auditors  trade  and  traffic 
a  great  deal   in  merchandise  from   China;    and  the   citizens   complain 
that  it  is  with  the  auditors'  money  (their  own  or  borrowed),  and  that 
with  the  favor  they  receive  they  cause  great  injury  to  the  common 
wealth,  for  they  take  up  the  whole  cargo.     They  desire  to  be  preferred 


288       Audicncia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

In  view  of  all  these  abuses  and  evils  which,  directly  or 
indirectly,  proceeded  from  the  audiencia,  Acuna  maintained 
that  all  the  powers  of  government,  war  and  justice,  should  be 
concentrated  in  the  office  of  governor  and  captain-general.  The 
country,  he  said,  was  more  at  war  than  at  peace.  It  was  essen 
tially  military,  by  virtue  of  its  location  and  isolation.  Acuna 
contended  that  all  authorities  and  departments  of  the  govern 
ment  should  therefore  be  dependent  on  a  miliary  chief  rather 
than  on  a  high  court  of  justice  which  was  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  spirit  and  needs  of  the  colony.  In  a  government  so 
new  as  that  of  the  Philippines,  the  same  laws  and  punish 
ments  should  not  be  enforced  so  rigidly  as  in  more  settled 
parts,  yet  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  had  failed  to  under 
stand  that  their  functions  in  a  colony  of  this  character  should 
be  in  any  way  different  than  those  of  a  similar  tribunal  in 
Spain.  Acuna  stated  that  there  had  been  occasions  in  which 
the  audiencia,  in  possession  of  partial  evidence  in  regard  to  a 
military  matter,  had  interfered  with  an  action  which  the  gov 
ernor  had  wished  to  take.  He  had  thus  been  rendered  power 
less  to  exercise  sovereignty  which  rightfully  belonged  to  him, 


therein,  and  in  buying  the  cloth  and  in  every  other  way,  try  to  take 
advantage.  If  the  president  wishes  to  remedy  this  they  do  not  cease 
to  offer  him  little  annoyances;  for  the  auditors  know  how  to  magnify 
themselves,  in  such  a  manner  that  they  give  one  to  understand  that  any 
one  of  them  is  greater  than  he;  and  they  attain  this  by  saying  that 
what  the  president  or  governor  does  they  can  cancel,  and  that  what 
the  auditors  decree  has  no  appeal,  recourse,  or  redress"  (ibid.,  234-5). 
Acuna  testified  that  the  magistrates  had  rendered  life  unpleasant 
for  the  residents  of  the  colony,  because  of  their  selfishness.  He  con 
tinued:  "the  resources  of  this  land  are  scanty,  but  if  there  is  anything 
good  the  auditors  also  say  that  they  want  it  for  themselves;  and  when 
there  is  a  Chinese  embroiderer,  tailor,  carver,  or  other  workman,  they 
proceed  to  take  him.  .  .  .  Such  benefits  do  not  extend  to  the  citizens; 
but  rather,  if  any  of  these  things  are  available,  the  said  auditors 
demand  them  and  by  entreaty  and  intimidation  get  possession  of  them. 
It  is  the  same  thing  in  regard  to  jewels,  slave  men  and  women,  articles 
of  dress,  and  other  things.  .  .  .  We  are  compelled  to  overlook  these 
things,  and  others  of  more  importance,  that  we  may  not  experience 
worse  trouble;  ...  as  your  Majesty  is  five  thousand  leguas  from 
here  and  redress  comes  so  slowly"  (ibid.,  235-236). 


Removal  Recommended  289 

and  which,  if  put  into  effect,  would  no  doubt  have  been  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  colony. 

In  addition  to  the  above  representations,  the  governor  laid 
great  stress  on  the  financial  advantages  which  would  be  de 
rived  from  a  suppression  of  the  tribunal.  He  stated  that  the 
colony  was  short  of  money,  a  condition  of  which  the  magis 
trates  were  well  aware,  yet  they  always  insisted  011  being  the 
first  to  collect  their  own  salaries,  to  the  exclusion,  if  necessary, 
of  all  other  officials  in  the  colony.43  With  the  money  saved  from 
the  abolition  of  the  audiencia,  an  armed  fleet  could  be  provided 
for  the  defense  of  the  Islands.  This  was  badly  needed,  and 
there  was  no  other  way  of  obtaining  the  necessary  ships.  The 
Chinese  rebellion  of  the  year  before46  had  caused  a  diminution 
of  46,000  pesos  in  the  commercial  duties  collected,47  and  the 


43  Their  salaries  must  be  preferred,  he  wrote,  "even  if  it  be  from 
the  stated  fund  for  the  religious  orders,  bishops,  ministers  of  instruc 
tion,  and  for  the  military  forces,  who  are  before  them  in  order, — they 
have  difficulties  and  misunderstandings  with  the  royal  officials  (ibid., 
236)  ...  as  the  treasury  is  always  straitened  (sic),  and,  on  account  of 
the  great  care  which  the  auditors  take  to  collect  their  salaries,  as  it 
cannot  be  so  prompt  as  they  would  wish,  they  seek  borrowed  money 
from  the  citizens — who  give  it  to  them,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  each 
one  according  to  his  means  or  designs.  From  this  follow  difficulties, 
to  which  they  pay  no  heed;  as  some  of  them  demand  these  loans  from 
persons  who  are  parties  to  suits  at  the  time,  who  grant  these  to  the 
auditors  in  order  to  place  them  under  obligations,  and  profit  by  them" 
(ibid.,  239). 

46  The  rebellion  referred  to  here  occurred  in  1603.     It  was  said  to 
have  been  instigated  by  two  mysterious  mandarins  who  came  to  Manila 
for  the  alleged  purpose  of  searching  for  a  mountain  of  silver,  which 
was  located  near  Cavite.     On  the  Eve  of  St.  Francis  the  Chinese  made 
their    attack    with    great    success,    owing,    the    ecclesiastical    element 
claimed,  to  the  personal  intervention  of  St.  Francis,  who  appeared  on 
the  walls  and  led  his  followers  to  victory.     In  this  revolt  24,000  Chi 
nese  were  hunted  down  and  slain.     In  1639  another  rebellion  occurred. 
A  third  insurrection  of  the  Chinese  took  place  in  1660.     In  1763  the 
Chinese  joined   with   the   British   in   their  attack   on   the   city.     It   is 
estimated  that  Anda,  in  his  campaign  in  the  provinces,  put  an  end  to 
6,000  Chinese.     Another  massacre,  and  the  last  in  the  history  of  the 
Islands,    took   place    in    1820.      This   was   an    uprising    of   the   natives 
against  all  foreigners  who  were  thought  to  be  responsible  for  the  plague 
of  cholera  then  raging    (Foreman,  Philippine  Islands.   108-119;    A.   I., 
105-1  to  10  and  68-1-27). 

47  The  entire  dependence  of  the  colony  on  the  Chinese  trade  is  at 
tested  by  Concepcion  (Historia  general,  IV,  53).    He  states  that:  "With- 


290       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

consequent  shortage  of  money  in  the  treasury  of  the  colony  fur 
nished  further  reasons  for  the  dismissal  of  this  useless  and 
burdensome  tribunal.  Acuna  admitted  that  the  institution  of 
the  audiencia  might  be  successful  in  larger  dependencies  of 
Spain,  where  the  people  were  prosperous  and  where  the  gov 
ernment  had  an  assured  income,  but  in  the  Philippines,  where 
the  citizens  were  poor,  with  scarcely  any  means  of  support,  and 
harassed  by  many  magistrates  and  their  dependents,  the  audi 
encia  had  been  a  failure  and  a  serious  burden. 

Acuna 's  concluding  statement  very  aptly  sizes  up  the  situa 
tion  and  voices  his  demand  for  the  abolition  of  the  tribunal. 
He  wrote : 

The  difficulty  which  presents  itself  to  me  in  this  matter  is  that, 
if  the  Audiencia  is  abolished  and  everything  left  in  charge  of  the  gov 
ernor,  there  will  be  but  slow  and  poor  remedy  for  the  grievances  and 
disorders  which  may  occur.  For  they  must  be  taken  to  the  Audiencia 
of  Mexico,  which  is  so  far  away  that  the  aggrieved  ones  would  con 
sume  both  life  and  property  before  the  business  was  settled.  .  .  . 
all  say  that  they  consider  government  by  one  person  the  best,  when 
he  governs  justly.  These  men  (who  believe  in  the  above)  know  what 
the  governor  can  do  without  the  Audiencia,  and  with  it;  and  they  be 
lieve  that  it  is  better  when  there  are  not  so  many  to  command  them, 
for  they  have  never  seen  the  audiencias  redress  illegal  acts  by  the  gov 
ernors  .  .  .  Although  there  is  no  doubt  that  much  of  what  this  paper 
recounts  occurs  in  other  regions  where  there  are  audiencias,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  in  this  country,  which  is  the  newest  of  all  and  more 
engaged  in  war  than  any  of  the  others;  and  where  the  hardships  of  con 
quest  and  maintenance  are  so  omnipresent;  and  your  Majesty  has 
little  profit  or  advantage,  except  the  cargo  of  cloth  which  goes  to  Nueva 
Hespaila  (sic),  and  which  is  divided  among  all;  and  as  the  resources  of 
the  country  are  so  scant  that  there  is  no  place  to  go  in  order  to  seek  a 
livelihood  outside  of  Manila:  there  is  much  criticism  in  this  matter, 
and  the  people  are  much  aggrieved  at  seeing  themselves  in  the  utmost 
part  of  the  world,  harassed  and  troubled  by  so  many  magistrates  and 
officers  and  their  dependents,  and  at  having  so  many  to  satisfy;  and 


out  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  Chinese  these  dominions  could  not 
have  subsisted."  Morga,  in  his  Sucesos  (349),  further  testifies:  "It 
is  true  the  town  cannot  exist  without  the  Chinese,  as  they  are  the 
workers  in  all  trades  and  business,  and  are  very  industrious,  working 
for  small  wages." 


Excesses  of  the  Magistrates  291 

that  matters  are  in  such  a  state  that  he  who  has  an  auditor  for  a 
protector  may,  it  appears,  go  wherever  he  wishes  and  with  as  much 
as  he  wishes,  and  he  who  has  not  must  be  ruined. *« 

This  brings  us  to  the  administration  of  Governor  Alonso 
Fajardo  (1618-1624),  whose  relations  with  the  audiencia  we 
have  already  shown  to  have  been  very  unpleasant.  Fully  as 
many  charges  were  brought  against  the  oidores  by  that  governor 
as  were  put  forward  by  the  magistrates  against  him.  According 
to  Fajardo,  the  oidores  had  so  used  their  power  of  appoint 
ment  that  it  amounted  to  virtual  dictation.  Fajardo,  like 
Acuiia,  found  his  control  over  the  filling  of  offices  greatly 
diminished.  He  energetically  protested  against  the  proposition 
which  had  been  made  to  increase  the  size  of  the  court  from 
four  to  five"  magistrates.  He  stated  that  the  amount  of  legal 
business  which  came  before  the  tribunal  did  not  justify  an 
augmentation  of  the  number  of  oidores;  he  recommended  that 
the  magistrates  should  spend  their  time  more  advantageously, 
and  waste  less  in  quarreling  among  themselves  and  in  wreaking 
their  passions  on  their  rivals.  Like  Acuiia,  Fajardo  complained 
against  the  presence  of  so  large  a  number  of  relatives  and  per 
sonal  followers  of  the  oidores,  whose  lust  for  office  had  to  be 
satisfied.49  The  magistrates  had  engaged  in  trade  through 
intermediaries,  and  had  spent  the  time  which  should  have  been 
devoted  to  the  administration  of  justice  in  devising  schemes 
whereby  they  and  their  agents  could  get  the  most  out  of  for 
bidden  commercial  transactions,  and  at  the  same  time  be  pro 
tected  in  their  illicit  activities.  Fajardo  claimed  that  the  niagis- 


4s  Acuiia  to  Felipe  III,  July  15,  1604,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIII, 
239-241. 

49  Fajardo  described  "the  oppression  caused  by  the  multitude  of  rela 
tives  and  followers  (of  the  auditors)  ;  their  appropriation  of  the  offices 
and  emoluments,  to  the  injury  of  the  meritorious;  their  hatred  and 
hostility  to  those  who  unfortunately  fall  out  with  them;  their  trading 
and  trafficking,  although  it  be  by  an  intermediary,  since  they, 
being  men  of  influence,  buy  the  goods  at  wholesale  and  protect 
their  agents."  He  stated  that  this  caused  him  great  embarrassment 
and  made  good  government  almost  an  impossibility  (Fajardo  to  Felipe 
III,  August  10,  1618,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVIII,  126). 


292      Audiencia  and  Governor:  Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

grates  had  abused  their  positions  to  such  an  extent  that  they 
had  become  an  intolerable  incumbrance  to  the  colony. 

Strife  and  discord  between  the  audiencia  and  the  governor 
were  perhaps  more  bitter  during  the  administration  of  Fajardo 
than  at  any  other  time  in  the  history  of  the  Islands.  This 
governor  accused  the  magistrates  of  deliberately  attempting  in 
all  petty  and  inconsequential  ways  to  harass  him  into  compli 
ance  with  its  desires.  lie  wrote  that  he  had  done  everything 
possible  to  keep  peace  with  the  oidores,  even  at  a  sacrifice  of 
the  respect  of  the  other  elements  of  the  colony.50  This  testi 
mony  is  practically  identical  with  that  submitted  by  Governor 
Aeuna  in  1604.  The  influence  of  the  tribunal  in  the  matter 
of  appointments,  judging  by  this  and  by  other  statements  and 
allegations  already  quoted,  and  by  the  laws  themselves,  must 
have  been  great. 

The  tendency  to  fill  offices  with  friends  and  relatives  was 
characteristic  not  only  of  the  magistrates,  but  of  the  viceroys 
and  governors  as  well.  More  laws  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Recopilacion  which  guard  against  such  abuses  by  governors  and 
viceroys  than  by  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia.51  Bearing 
in  mind,  of  course,  that  there  are  two  sides  to  the  question,  it 
is  at  least  clear  that  the  audiencia  was  successful  in  one  of 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  created — namely,  that  of  pre 
venting  the  governor  from  exercising  entire  control  over  ap 
pointments.  We  have  the  confession  of  Governor  Fajardo  here 
and  of  Governor  Acufia  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  that  those 
governors  were  unable  to  prevent  the  oidores  from  filling  offices 


so  "The  auditors,"  Fajardo  wrote,  "have  few  important  matters  that 
oblige  them  to  close  application,  (and)  they  must  apply  the  greater 
part  of  their  time  to  devising  petty  tricks  on  the  president  in  order  to 
vex  and  weary  him,  until,  fas  they  hope]  not  only  will  he  allow  them 
to  live  according  to  their  own  inclination  but  also  their  relatives  and 
followers  shall,  in  whatever  posts  they  desire,  be  employed  and  profited. 
And  since  harmony  has  never  been  seen  here  without  this  expedient, 
one  would  think  it  easy  to  believe  such  a  supposition"  (Fajardo  to  the 
King,  August  15,  1620,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIX,  120-121). 

si  Recopilacion,  8-20,  21,  22. 


Fajardo  and  the  Audicncia  293 

with  their  own  friends.  Although  we  have  been  following  the 
governor's  side  of  the  question  in  these  last  few  pages,  we 
have  noted  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the  laws  of  the  Indies 
gave  to  the  audiencia  the  right  of  participating  in  acuerdo 
with  the  governor  in  matters  of  appointment. 

Governor  Fajardo 's  method  of  referring  matters  to  the 
audiencia  for  advice  is  interesting.  Instead  of  submitting  ques 
tions  to  the  acuerdo  for  the  general  advice  and  opinion  of  all 
the  oidores,  he  was  said  to  have  sought  to  escape  the  obligation 
of  acting  in  accordance  with  the  advice  given  him,  by  asking 
the  oidores  for  their  individual  opinions  concerning  matters 
on  which  he  desired  advice.  The  audiencia  took  exception  to 
this  method  of  procedure,  alleging  that  he  was  thus  escaping 
the  responsibilities  of  the  acuerdo.  Fajardo  defended  himself 
against  the  accusation  by  the  statement  that  the  oidores  met 
together  so  seldom  that  he  had  been  unable  to  submit  questions 
to  the  magistrates  collectively  in  accordance  with  the  law. 

Fajardo  also  complained  against  the  failure  of  the  oidores 
to  comply  with  his  instructions  in  regard  to  the  inspection  of 
the  provinces.  He  stated  that  the  magistrates  disliked  to 
bestir  themselves  from  their  inactive  and  indolent  lives  amid 
the  comforts  of  Manila,  and  no  inspections  had  been  made  dur 
ing  the  three  years  prior  to  the  date  of  this  letter.  Philip  III, 
without  raising  his  voice  in  indignation  or  decreeing  any  pun 
ishment  upon  those  officials  who  had  refused  to  execute  his 
decrees,  mildly  solicited  that  they  should  devote  their  care  and 
attention  to  the  matter  in  the  future.  He  remonstrated  that 
this  was  the  only  way  in  which  the  facts  relating  to  the 
country  and  to  the  interests  and  needs  of  its  people  could  be 
ascertained. 

These  inspections  are  very  essential,  since  they  are  based  on  the 
relief  of  miserable  persons,  and  in  no  way  can  the  condition  of  affairs 
be  fully  ascertained  unless  by  means  of  these  inspections;  and  the 
most  advisable  measures  can  hardly  be  well  understood,  if  the  condi 
tion  and  facts  of  what  ought  to  be  remedied  and  can  be  bettered  are 


294       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

not  known.  Hence  I  again  charge  you  to  pay  especial  attention  to 
these  inspections.  The  Audiencia  is  commanded  to  observe  the  orders 
that  you  shall  give  in  your  capacity  as  president  so  that  each  auditor, 
when  it  concerns  him,  may  observe  his  obligations  and  go  out  on  the 
inspections.52 

In  reply  to  these  observations,  the  Council  ordered  Fajardo 
to  make  recommendations  for  the  reform  of  the  government,  stat 
ing  that  such  suggestions  as  he  would  make  would  be  duly  con 
sidered  and  observed.53 

On  his  arrival  in  the  Islands,  Fajardo,  as  yet  unfamiliar 
with  the  duties  and  conditions  of  his  office,  expressed  his  un 
willingness  to  recommend  the  entire  abolition  of  the  audiencia, 
preferring  to  have  present  a  council  which  he  could  consult 
regarding  the  problems  of  his  new  office.  The  tribunal  in  the 
Philippines  was  probably  not  so  important  as  were  those  in 
Spain,  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  the  king,  "where," 
as  he  expressed  it, 

one  obtains  strict  justice,  administered  by  upright  and  holy  men — the 
people  here  considering  that  those  who  are  farthest  from  meriting 
that  name  are  those  who  are  farthest  from  the  presence  of  your 
Majesty  and  your  royal  counselors.  ...  In  what  pertains  to  me,  I  do 
not  petition  you  for  anything  in  this  matter,  since  in  no  respect  can  it 
be  ill  for  me  to  have  someone  to  consult,  and  who  will  relieve  me  in 
matters  of  justice. 54 

Fajardo's  act  in  forming  a  new  audiencia  after  he  had  sup 
pressed  the  real  one  shows  that  the  audiencia  was  essential  to 
him  in  the  two  particulars  mentioned  by  him  in  the  above 
letter. 

That  his  attitude  towards  this  question  was  somewhat 
altered  by  three  years'  experience  as  governor  of  the  Philip 
pines  is  shown  in  his  memorial  of  July  21,  1621.  On  this  occa 
sion  Fajardo  argued  against  the  continuation  of  the  tribunal, 


$ 2  Decree  written  on  margin  of  letter:  Fajardo  to  the  King,  August 
15,  1620,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIX,  136. 

ss  ibid.,  122. 

54  Fajardo  to  Felipe  III,  August  10,  1618,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XVIII,  126. 


Dissension  295 

showing  himself  to  be  of  the  same  opinion  as  Acuiia,  who,  it 
will  be  remembered,  contended  that  because  the  colony  was 
military  in  character,  there  should  be  one  person  to  control 
affairs,  without  any  interference  whatsoever.  He  wrote : 

I  beg  your  Majesty  that  while  it  shall  last  (the  war)  you  may  be 
pleased  to  discontinue  the  Audiencia  here,  as  it  is  this  that  most 
hinders  and  opposes  the  administration  and  the  government,  .  .  . 
This  is  the  enemy  which  most  afflicts  this  commonwealth,  and  most 
causes  dissensions,  parties,  factions,  and  hatred  between  the  citizens — 
each  auditor  persecuting  those  citizens  who  are  not  wholly  of  his  own 
faction,  especially  those  who  extend  aid  and  good-will  toward  the 
governor,  against  whom,  as  it  seems,  they  show  themselves  always  in 
league.  They  always  make  declarations  of  grievances  [against  him] 
because  they  are  not  each  one  given,  as  used  to  be  and  is  the  custom 
here,  whatever  they  may  ask  for  their  sons,  relatives  and  servants; 
and  they  habitually  discredit  the  governor  by  launching  through  secret 
channels  false  and  malicious  reports,  and  afterward  securing  witnesses 
of  their  publicity.  They  even,  as  I  have  written  to  your  Majesty,  man 
age  to  have  religious  and  preachers  publish  these  reports  to  which  end, 
and  for  his  own  security,  each  one  of  the  auditors  has  formed  an  alli 
ance  with  the  religious  order  which  receives  him  best.ss 

He  summarized   as   follows : 

I  consider  this  government  much  more  difficult,  with  the  auditors 
of  this  Audiencia,  than  it  is  or  would  be  even  if  there  were  more  war, 
for  that  war  which  they  cause  within  its  boundaries  appears  beyond 
remedy,  on  account  of  their  abilities  and  rank.ss 

An  abundance  of  evidence  exists  on  both  sides  of  this  con 
troversy  ;  letters  of  complaint  against  the  governor  and  charges 
against  the  oidores  by  the  governor.  The  vividness  and  appar- 


ss  Fajardo  to  the  King,  July  21,  1621,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XX,  53. 

so  Ibid.,  54.  Fajardo  continued  as  follows:  "To  such  a  point  has  it 
(the  dissension)  gone  that  if  this  country  were  not  involved  in  the 
perils  of  war  as  it  has  been,  and  as  they  are  still  threatening  it,  I  should 
beseech  your  Majesty  to  place  it  in  charge  of  some  other  person,  who 
would  be  more  interested  in  documents.  But  may  God  not  choose  that 
I  should  be  relieved  from  the  service  of  your  Majesty,  in  which  from  the 
age  of  fifteen  years  I  have  been  engaged;  ...  It  would  be  no  little 
pleasure  to  me  to  be  employed  in  naval  and  military  affairs  and  other 
things  in  which,  with  my  counsel  and  my  personal  aid,  I  might  be  able 
to  help;  and  to  know  that  the  matter  of  auditors  and  their  demands, 
their  rivalries,  and  their  faultfinding,  should  concern  another." — Ibid., 
55-56. 


296      Audiencia  and  Governor:  Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

ent  directness  of  the  charges  and  the  apparent  sincerity  of 
both  the  governor  and  the  oidores  make  it  extremely  difficult, 
and,  in  fact,  quite  impossible  to  decide  on  the  basis  of  the 
evidence  presented,  who  was  right  or  wrong,  which  charges, 
true  or  untrue,  and  who  was  really  responsible  for  the  diffi 
culties.  It  would  appear  that  the  king  was  prone  to  sympa 
thize  with  the  governor  rather  than  with  the  audiencia,  for  in 
practically  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  sovereign  was  adverse 
to  the  tribunal.  The  fact  that  the  governor  was  the  royal 
representative  was  probably  a  large  factor  in  securing  him  the 
support  of  the  home  government.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
audiencia  was  in  the  same  sense  the  royal  tribunal. 

Governor  Fajardo  affords  an  example  of  a  successful  mili 
tary  man  who,  having  won  fame  for  himself  in  the  wars  of  the 
continent,  but  without  legal  knowledge  or  administrative  ex 
perience,  was  called  to  the  government  of  a  distant  and  isolated 
colony,  with  the  responsibilty  of  continuing  in  harmonious  rela 
tions  with  a  hostile  civil  and  judicial  tribunal  on  the  one  hand, 
with  whose  powers  and  functions  he  was  not  familiar,  and  an 
equally  hostile  religious  institution  on  the  other.  Men  of 
military  training  usually  had  great  contempt  for  the  abilities 
and  good  intentions  of  priests  and  lawyers  in  those  days,  and 
it  was  frequently  evident,  both  by  their  actions  and  by  their 
own  confessions,  that  conquistadorcs  of  the  stamp  of  Fajardo, 
Acufia,  and  Corcuera  were  little  fitted  for  the  exercise  of  ad 
ministrative  and  governmental  functions,  however  useful  they 
might  be  in  adding  to  the  domain  of  the  Spanish  empire. 

Thus,  there  being  present  in  the  colony  a  tribunal  of  trained 
lawyers  who  were  at  the  same  time  capable  and  experienced  ad 
ministrators,  the  governors  became  accustomed  to  rely  on  them 
for  advice  and  assistance,  in  compliance  with  the  commands  of 
the  laws  of  the  Indies.  As  one  governor  of  military  tastes  and 
training  succeeded  another,  each  lacking  administrative  ability 
and  experience,  the  audiencia  came  to  assume  an  increased 


The  Salcedo  Affair,  1668  297 

share  in  the  governmental  activity  of  the  colony.  This  tend 
ency  was  accentuated  by  the  fact  that  the  governor  was  absent 
from  the  capital  city  on  campaigns  of  conquest  and  defense  a 
large  share  of  his  time.  Ability  as  a  soldier  and  commander 
was  always  the  chief  criterion  for  the  selection  of  a  governor 
and  captain-general,  and  military  affairs  were  given  more 
attention  by  far  than  matters  of  administration.  Spain's 
policy  of  selecting  soldiers  instead  of  administrators  for  the 
post  of  governor  went  far  towards  making  the  audi- 
encia  more  than  a  court  of  justice,  and  towards  giving  it  a 
share  in  the  executive  functions  of  government.  This  tendency 
was  also  furthered  by  the  fact  that  the  audiencia  came  to 
assume  the  entire  administration  on  the  death  or  absence  of 
the  governor,  a  power  which  it  did  not  always  exercise  well, 
but  which  it  always  relinquished  with  reluctance. 

The  Salcedo  affair  in  1668-1670  emphasizes  other  differ 
ences  than  those  of  the  audiencia  and  the  governor,  yet  refer 
ence  should  be  made  to  it  in  this  connection,  because,  after  all, 
the  oidores  were  concerned  indirectly  in  the  struggle.  An 
examination  of  the  data  at  our  command  will  reveal  the  fact 
that  the  refusal  or  failure  of  the  oidores  to  intervene  in  behalf 
of  the  governor  led  to  his  defeat  and  humiliation  by  the  com 
missary  of  the  Inquisition.  The  audiencia  might  have  pre 
vented  that  disaster  had  the  magistrates  been  so  inclined. 

Before  Governor  Salcedo  was  arrested,  imprisoned  and  sent 
to  Mexico  in  1668  by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition  on 
charges  of  a  purely  ecclesiastical  character,  the  two  oidores, 
Bonifaz  and  Montemayor,  were  consulted  by  the  enemies  of  the 
governor  as  to  the  legality  of  the  proposed  action.  There 
is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  entire  plot  was  worked  out 
beforehand  with  the  fore-knowledge  and  consent  of  the  oidores. 
Inharmonious  relations  had  existed  before  the  arrest  of  the 
governor  between  Salcedo  and  his  associates,  because  of  his 
independence  and  his  unwillingness  to  provide  offices  and 


298       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

opportunities  for  commercial  profit  for  their  relatives.  The 
exact  part  which  the  audiencia  played  in  the  arrest  of  Salcedo 
is  not  known,  since  the  entire  plot  was  schemed  and  executed 
under  the  cloak  of  the  Inquisition ;  but  the  fact  remains  that 
Oidores  Montemayor  and  Bonifaz  each  hoped  to  assume  the 
management  of  governmental  affairs  upon  the  exile  of  Salcedo. 
Indeed,  the  ambitions  of  Bonifaz  were  realized.  The  removal 
of  Salcedo  culminated  in  the  usurpation  of  the  government  by 
Bonifaz,  in  the  exile  of  Montemayor,  his  rival,  to  the  provinces, 
and  in  the  complete  suppression  of  the  audiencia  for  a  year. 
It  is  said  that  Bonifaz,  through  a  usurper,  ruled  beneficently 
and  well,  and  that  he  little  deserved  the  sentence  of  death 
which  was  pronounced  on  him  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
The  authority  for  the  assertion  that  his  rule  was  meritorious 
was  ecclesiastical  and  hence,  in  this  case,  possibly  questionable.57 
It  is  certain,  at  least,  that  Bonifaz  and  his  government  were 
under  the  complete  domination  of  the  church.58 

It  has  been  frequently  stated  in  this  chapter,  that  jealousy 
and  rivalry  were  always  determining  factors  in  the  relationship 
of  the  audiencia  and  the  governor.  A  new  executive,  until 
familiar  with  the  duties  of  his  station,  was  always  glad  to  seek 
the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  oidores,  meanwhile  permitting 
the  audiencia  to  assume  many  functions  which  belonged  to  him 
as  governor.  A  new  governor  was  gracious,  and  agreeable  to  all, 
and  we  find  that  most  of  the  favorable  comments  made  con 
cerning  governors  by  magistrates,  prelates,  and  officials  were 
pronounced  when  the  environment  -was  new  to  them  or  to  the 
governor.  When  the  routine  of  official  duties  became  irksome 


"  Concepcion,  Historia  general,  VII,  168  et  seq.;  see  Lea,  Inquisition 
in  the  Spanish  dependencies.  299-318,  and  Cunningham,  "The  inquisi 
tion  in  the  Spanish  colonies;  the  Salcedo  affair,"  in  the  Catholic  his 
torical  review,  III,  417-445.  The  Salcedo  affair  will  be  more  fully  dis 
cussed  in  Chapter  XI,  of  this  book,  which  treats  of  the  relations  of  the 
audiencia  and  the  church;  citations  60-72,  Chapter  XI. 

ss  See  Augtistinians  in  Philippines,  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXVII, 
235,  239,  269-273. 


Private  Trade  299 

and  opportunities  for  private  profit  presented  themselves,  as 
always  happened  in  the  course  of  time,  friction  arose,  and  jeal 
ousy  and  discord  took  the  place  of  the  goodwill  and  harmony 
which  at  first  seemed  so  promising. 

The  most  contaminating  influence  in  the  colony  was  the 
commercial  spirit.  Governors  and  magistrates  engaged  in 
trade  on  a  large  scale,  and  the  churchmen  also  yielded  to  the 
commercial  instinct.  The  latter  assertion  will  be  enlarged 
upon  in  its  proper  place ;  proof  of  the  commercial  activities  of 
governors  and  magistrates  has  already  been  given.  '  The  re 
sentment  of  the  oidores  always  led  them  to  place  every  con 
ceivable  opposition  in  the  way  of  the  governor  when  it  was 
seen  that  he  was  obtaining  more  than  his  fair  share  of  profit 
from  trade,  appointments,  or  indulgences  to  the  Chinese.  This 
led  to  a  refusal  to  ratify  his  appointments  in  many  cases,  to 
oppose  him  in  the  acuerdo,  to  incite  the  residents  of  the  colony 
against  him,  and  to  do  everything  possible  to  make  a  failure 
of  his  administration.  Governors  on  the  other  hand  might 
employ  one  of  two  methods  in  dealing  with  the  magistrates. 
That  most  commonly  pursued  was  to  allow  them  a  liberal  share 
of  the  booty,  commercial  or  political,  the  latter  obtained  by  per 
mitting  them  to  disregard  the  law  by  giving  offices  to  their 
relatives  and  followers,  thereby  purchasing  their  favor.  The 
other  method  was  to  meet  their  charges  with  counter-charges, 
which  were  probably  as  truthful,  though  usually  not  so  serious 
as  those  which  the  magistrates  made  against  them.  The  admin 
istrations  of  those  governors  who  openly  opposed  the  audiencia 
and  sought  to  keep  it  within  the  limits  of  its  jurisdiction  as  a 
judicial  tribunal,  were  most  notable  for  their  conflicts. 

The  Court  of  Madrid  was  unable  to  remedy  these  defects 
in  colonial  administration.  It  could  and  did  discipline  the 
officials  by  sending  an  occasional  visitor,  or  by  forcing  them  to 
give  vigorous  residencias,  but  these  punishments  only  led  to 
greater  abuses  in  order  to  reimburse  themselves  for  the  fines 


300       Audiencia  and  Governor:   Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

which  they  had  to  pay.  Officials  were  able  to  send  away  large 
sums  of  money  and  consignments  of  merchandise,  and  then, 
after  having  paid  liberal  penalties,  they  returned  to  Spain 
and  lived  in  comfortable  retirement.  Acceptance  of  the  office 
of  governor,  aidor,  corregidor,  or  alcalde  mayor  was  made  with 
a  foreknowledge  that  disputes  would  arise,  enemies  would 
bring  accusations,  and  punishments  would  be  meted  out, 
whether  deserved  or  not.  This  condition  led  to  the  abuses 
which  have  been  noted,  and  the  recriminations  and  struggles 
between  authorities.  From  the  view-point  of  these  officials  the 
Philippines  were  neither  governed  for  the  good  of  the  natives 
nor  for  the  residents,  nor  for  the  honor  of  Spain,  nor  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Catholic  religion,  but  merely  for  the  profit 
and  advancement  of  those  who  were  on  the  ground  to  take  ad 
vantage  of  their  opportunities.  They  were  struggles  for 
profit ;  pure  and  simple  contests  between  the  officials  either  to 
get  all  the  proceeds  possible  from  their  offices  or  to  keep  other 
officials  from  getting  all,  and  thus  to  get  a  share  for  them 
selves.  There  were  exceptions,  of  course,  to  the  conditions  and 
circumstances  just  noted.  Some  able  and  well-intentioned  men 
came  to  the  Islands,  as  came  to  all  of  Spain's  colonies, 
among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Oidor  Antonio  de  Morga,  the 
fiscal,  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  and  Governors  Anda  y 
Salazar,  Basco  y  Vargas,  Aguilar,  Enrile,  and  others  of  the 
nineteenth  century  when  opportunities  for  gain  were  somewhat 
diminished.  Some  of  these  officials  erred  on  the  side  of  over- 
strictness,  and  their  efforts  to  restrain  the  avarice  of  their  col 
leagues  and  to  infuse  the  spirit  of  honestly  into  their  admin 
istrations  united  the  opposition  and  led  to  battles  as  violent 
and  unrelenting  as  those  which  were  fought  when  all  parties 
were  dishonest. 

In  a  chapter  which  deals  alone  with  the  conflicts  of  juris 
diction  which  occurred  between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia, 
it  would  be  possible  to  arrive  at  an  entirely  mistaken  con- 


Mutual  Helpfulness  301 

elusion.  Disagreements  and  differences  were  frequent  as  well 
as  pronounced,  yet  the  history  of  the  Philippines  throughout 
the  three  hundred  years  of  Spanish  rule  is  not  a  record  of  per 
petual  strife.  It  is,  of  course,  understood  that  no  effort  has 
been  made  in  this  chapter  to  describe  all  the  struggles  which 
occurred  in  the  Islands  between  the  audiencia  and  the  gover 
nor.  Those  which  have  been  reviewed  were  selected  for  the 
purpose  because  they  illustrate,  in  a  general  way,  the  subjects 
over  which  disagreements  arose,  and  the  principles  underlying 
them. 

We  have  noted,  in  general,  that  the  audiencia  exercised 
functions  and  prerogatives  which  were  not  conferred  upon  it 
by  the  laws  of  the  Indies.  The  type  of  men  who  were  ap 
pointed  to  the  office  of  governor  and  captain-general  made  in 
evitable  the  accretion  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  magis 
trates.  The  audiencia  gradually  came  to  assume  more  at 
tributes  than  the  solely  judicial  ones.  Necessity  compelled 
the  governor  in  many  instances  to  entrust  the  tribunal  with 
many  of  his  own  functions  because  of  his  lack  of  skill  and 
experience  as  an  administrator  or  on  account  of  his  devotion 
to  military  affairs.  In  these  ways  the  acuerdo  came  to  be 
legislative  as  well  as  advisory;  the  frequent  absence  of  the 
governor,  or  his  death,  led  to  the  audiencia 's  assumption  of 
the  governorship  and  the  tribunal  was  always  reluctant  to 
surrender  the  administrative  powers  once  gained. 

Jealousy  between  officials  and  the  resultant  conflicts  of 
authority  may  be  classified  together  as  a  cause  of  strife.  These 
difficulties  resulted  in  part  from  +he  fact  that  the  sphere  of 
authority  of  each  official  was  not  defined  with  exactness  in 
the  laws  of  the  Indies,  and  also  because  those  laws  were  often 
countermanded  by  later  cedulas  of  whose  existence  the  colon 
ial  officials  were  not  always  aware.  Spanish  laws  were  fre 
quently  repealed  and  subsequently  put  in  force  without  notice ; 
this  was  always  a  source  of  confusion.  Then  again  the  excep- 


302       Audiencia  and  Governor:  Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction 

tional  opportunities  for  trade  offered  by  the  transfer  of  the  rich 
oriental  cargoes  at  Manila  tempted  oidores  and  governors 
alike.  The  trading  privileges  conceded  by  the  government  did 
not  always  end  when  the  limit  of  permission  was  reached. 
Some  officials,  and  particularly  governors,  could  command  more 
than  their  rightful  share  of  galleon  space ;  this  led  to  disputes 
and  recriminations  which  often  interfered  seriously  with  the 
government.  We  have  noted  that  the  appointing  power  which 
belonged  nominally  to  the  governor  and  which  was  shared  by 
the  oidores  was  also  a  source  of  much  trouble.  The  knowledge 
that  the  residencia  wrould  ultimately  bring  about  the  punish 
ment  of  guilty  officials  and  enemies,  the  distance  and  isolation 
of  the  colony,  and  the  length  of  time  necessary  for  communica 
tion — all  these  factors  made  it  possible  for  officials  to  commit 
excesses.  Another  cause  of  discord  was  what  might  be  termed 
the  reaction  of  the  executive  against  the  increased  power  and 
authority  of  the  audiencia.  This  accretion  of  power  was  due 
to  the  complete  dependence  of  the  governor  on  the  tribunal  in 
administrative  matters,  especially  at  the  begining  of  his  term, 
the  increasing  power  of  the  acuerdo,  the  superiority  of  the 
audiencia  as  a  court  of  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  gov 
ernor,  and  the  fact  that  the  latter  always  needed  the  presence 
of  the  audiencia  to  lend  legality  to  his  government. 

It  may  be  stated,  nevertheless,  that  the  governor  actually 
held  the  more  powerful  position  in  the  colony,  and  that  he 
most  frequently  emerged  victor  in  the  various  struggles  with 
the  audiencia.  Various  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  this.  The 
governor  was  the  personal  representative  of  the  king,  and  in 
this  capacity  he  had  the  backing  of  the  home  government.  He 
commanded  the  military  forces  in  the  colony.  The  authority 
of  the  royal  patronage  was  vested  in  the  governor;  he  was  thus 
often  able  to  command  the  support  of  the  church  and  clergy 
in  his  struggles  with  the  audiencia.  The  authority  over  the 
disposal  of  offices,  either  by  sale  or  appointment  belonged 


The  Superiority  of  the  Governor  303 

legally  to  the  governor,  although  this  power  was  effectively  dis 
puted  and  often  shared  by  the  audiencia.  The  governor  em 
ployed  the  last-mentioned  power  on  some  occasions  to  the  ex 
tent  of  reforming  and  reconstituting  the  audiencia,  thus  making 
the  government  entirely  dependent  011  him.  A  new  governor 
always  carried  with  him  a  more  recent  appointment  than  those 
of  the  oidores  whom  he  found  in  the  colony,  and  aside  from 
this  he  usually  possessed  definite  instructions  embodying  the 
royal  will  on  all  current  issues.  The  control  of  the  residencias 
of  the  oidores  was  usually  in  the  hands  of  the  governor,  and 
lastly,  the  laissez  fa-ire  attitude  of  the  Spanish  government,  its 
extreme  conservatism,  and  its  apparent  reluctance  to  correct  the 
evils  and  abuses  which  wrere  reported  to  it — all  these  \vere 
potent  factors  in  leaving  the  balance  of  power  as  it"  had  been, 
in  the  hands  of  the  governor,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of 
the  audiencia. 

A  previously  quoted  statement  made  by  a  famous  British 
historian  in  his  description  of  the  relative  powers  of  the  vice 
roys  of  New  Spain,  and  Peru,  and  their  respective  audiencias, 
may  be  used  here,  with  equal  effect,  to  characterize  the  situa 
tion  in  the  Philippines,  and  to  summarize  this  part  of  our  dis 
cussion:  "They  (the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia)  may  ad 
vise,  they  may  remonstrate ;  but  in  the  event  of  a  direct  colli 
sion  between  their  opinion  and  the  will  of  the  viceroy  (gov 
ernor),  what  he  determines  must  be  brought  into  execution, 
and  nothing  remains  for  them  but  to  lay  the  matter  before  the 
king  and  the  Council  of  the  Indies."59 


so  Robertson,  History  of  America,  IV,  20.     See  Chapter  VI,  note  54, 
of  this  book. 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  GOVERNOR:  THE   AD 
INTERIM  RULE 

The  most  extensive  non-judicial  activity  in  which  the  audi- 
encia  participated  at  any  time  was  its  assumption  of  the 
provisional  government  of  the  colony  during  vacancies  in  the 
governorship.  Aside  from  the  ten  different  occasions  on  which 
this  was  done,  the  audiencia  very  frequently  assumed  control 
of  the  government  when  the  exigencies  of  defense  and  foreign 
conquest  rendered  necessary  the  temporary  absence  of  the  gov 
ernor.  This  was  true  at  irregular  intervals  during  the  admin 
istrations  of  Governors  Pedro  Bravo  de  Acufia  (1602-1606), 
Juan  de  Silva  (1609-1616),  Juan  Nino  de  Tavora  (1626-1632), 
Sebastian  Hurtado  de  Corcuera  (1635-1644)  and  Diego  Fajardo 
(1644-1653).  The  administrations  of  these  several  governors 
were  characterized  by  extensive  military  operations,  largely  in 
a  foreign  field,  and  the  audiencia  not  only  took  over  govern 
mental  affairs  but  it  assumed  the  obligations  of  defense  during 
their  absence.  On  such  occasions,  of  course,  the  tribunal  re 
tained  its  exercise  of  judicial  functions. 

Since  the  audiencias  in  Peru  and  New  Spain  assumed  the 
government  much  earlier  than  did  the  audiencia  in  the  Philip 
pines,  and  as  the  laws  authorizing  the  rule  of  the  audiencia 
were  promulgated  first  to  meet  conditions  in  those  viceroyalties, 
it  seems  advisable  to  inquire  into  the  circumstances  surround 
ing  the  establishment  and  development  of  this  practice  there. 
Having  done  this,  we  shall  proceed  to  a  study  of  the  ad 
interim  rule  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  noting  particularly 
the  causes  of  the  success  or  failure  of  its  administration  and 


Lima  and  Mexico  305 

the  effect  of  this  practice  upon  the  subsequent  relations  of  the 
audiencia  and  the  governor. 

The  first  law  in  the  Recopilacion  authorizing  the  assumption 
of  the  government  by  an  audiencia  was  promulgated  as  early 
as  March  19,  1550.  This  law  provided  that  in  case  of  a 
vacancy  in  the  office  of  Viceroy  of  Peru,  the  audiencia  there 
should  succeed  to  the  governments  of  Peru,  Charcas,  Quito  and 
Tierra  Firme,  and  that  the  three  last-named  subordinate  audi- 
encias  should  obey  the  mandates  of  the  Audieucia  of  Lima  until 
a  permanent  successor  to  the  viceroy  was  named.1  This  law 
was  proclaimed  again  on  November  20,  1606. 

Even  before  the  promulgation  of  the  above  law  the  audi- 
encias  of  Lima  and  Mexico  had  assumed  control  of  'the  govern 
ment  in  their  respective  viceroyalties.  Shortly  after  the  death 
of  Francisco  Pizarro,  the  conqueror,  an  audiencia  was  sent  to 
Peru,  arriving  at  Lima  in  January,  1544,  in  company  with 
Blasco  Nunez  Vela,  the  first  viceroy.  The  rigidity  and  thor 
oughness  with  which  this  new  executive  enforced  the  New 
Laws  which  were  entrusted  to  him  met  with  the  opposition 
of  the  residents  of  the  colony,  and  the  audiencia  accordingly 
removed  him  from  his  position  as  viceroy  and  suspended  the 
operation  of  the  code  referred  to,  assuming  charge  of  affairs 
itself.2  Its  rule  was  brief,  howrever,  for  on  October  28,  1544, 


1  Recopilacion,  2-15-46. 

2  Moses,  The  Spanish  dependencies  in   Souili   America.  1,  221.     The 
Council   of  the   Indies   manifested   its  disapproval   of   the   acts   of  the 
audiencia  and  of  Pizarro  by  commissioning  Pedro  de  Gasca  as  president 
of  the  Audiencia  of  Lima.   Gasca  was  ordered  to  restore  that  viceroyalty 
to  the  sovereignty  of  Spain,  and  to  do  whatever  the   king  would   do 
under  like  circumstances.    This  was  in  May,  1546.    "He  (Gasca)  was  at 
the  head  of  every  department  of  the  administration,"  writes  Professor 
Moses;  "he  might  raise  troops,  appoint  and  remove  officers,  and  declare 
war;  he  might  exercise  the  royal  prerogative  of  pardoning  offenses;  and 
was  especially  commissioned  to  grant  an  amnesty  to  all  who  had  been 
engaged  in  the  rebellion.     He  was  authorized  to  revoke  the  ordinances 
which  had  caused  the  popular  uprising  and  the  overthrow  of  Blasco 
Nunez;   and,  returning  to  the  earlier  practice,  he  might  make  reparti- 
mientos,  or  confirm  those  which  had  been  previously  made.    In  accord 
ance  with  his  expressed  wish,  he  was  granted  no  specific  salary,. but  he 


306         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

it  invited  Gonzalo  Pizarro,  the  brother  of  the  conqueror,  into 
the  city  and  turned  the  government  over  to  him,  proclaiming 
him  Governor  and  Captain-General  of  Peru. 

During  the  period  from  1544  to  1551,  until  the  arrival  in 
Peril  of  Viceroy  Mendoza,  the  audiencia  exercised  control  of 
governmental  affairs.  It  made  and  unmade  captains-general 
and  viceroys,  irrespective  of  royal  appointments.  It  suspended 
the  New  Laws  of  1542  and  its  commands  were  obeyed.  From  1550 
to  1551  it  governed  alone.  In  these  incidents  we  note  that  the 
audiencia  actually  assumed  the  government  ad  interim  prior  to 
the  time  of  the  promulgation  of  the  law  of  March  19,  1550, 
exercising  administrative  as  well  as  judicial  powers,  thirty-five 
years  before  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  was  created.  "To  it 
(the  audiencia)  were  confided  in  the  beginning  and  later  in 
the  absence  of  the  viceroy,"  writes  Moses,  "all  matters  with 
which  governmental  authority  might  properly  deal."3  He 
further  states  that  "the  audiencia  in  its  executive  capacity, 
failed  to  justify  the  expectations  of  the  king,  and  a  new  order 
of  things  was  introduced  by  the  appointment  of  a  viceroy" 
(Mendoza,  April  17,  1535)  for  New  Spain.4 

These  powers  were  not  only  exercised  by  the  Audiencia  of 
Lima,  but  also  by  a  second  tribunal  which  was  created  in  1549 
at  Santa  Fe  de  Bogota.  The  latter  body  was  endowed  perma 
nently  with  both  judicial  and  administrative  powers,  appealing 
important  cases  to  the  superior  government  at  Lima.  This 
audiencia  had  the  status  of  a  presidency.  Its  president  was 
often  captain-general,  visitador,  and  senior  magistrate,  and  in 
exercising  the  functions  of  these  various  offices  he  was  in  all 
respects  the  most  powerful  official  in  New  Granada,  always 
being  able  to  enforce  his  will  over  the  other  magistrates.  At 
times  this  official  acted  with  entire  independence  of  the  Viceroy 


might  make  any  demands  on  the  treasuries   of  Panama  and   Peru." 
IUd.,  I,  225. 

s  Ibid..  I,  264. 

4  IUd.,  I,  267. 


Santa  Fe,  Choreas,  and  Chile  307 

of  Peru.5  The  exercise  of  military  functions  by  this  president 
and  audiencia  is  especially  to  be  noticed  in  the  part  they  played 
in  putting  down  the  Pijao  Indian  revolt  in  1565.6  On  the 
whole,  however,  judging  by  the  strife  prevailing  in  the  colony, 
the  various  struggles  between  the  oidores  and  the  president, 
and  between  the  audiencia  or  president  and  the  archbishop, 
the  government  could  never  have  been  considered  successful. 
The  official  corruption  which  became  apparent  as  a  result  of 
the  pesquisas  and  residencias  held  during  the  rule  of  the  Au 
diencia  of  Santa  Fe  could  scarcely  have  encouraged  the  home 
government  to  entrust  that  tribunal  with  the  administration  of 
affairs  in  the  future. 

The  defects  referred  to  above  in  connection  with  the  govern 
ment  of  the  Audiencia  of  Santa  Fe  did  not  deter  the  Spanish 
crown  from  founding  the  Audiencia  of  Charcas  in  1559. 
This  tribunal,  "like  the  audiencias  established  elsewhere,  exer 
cised  not  only  judicial,  but  also  administrative  powers. '  '7  It  had 
jurisdiction  over  the  neighboring  city  of  Potosi.  Again  we  may 
note  the  case  of  the  Audiencia  of  Santiago  de  Chile,  which  was 
established  on  August  27,  1565.  Its  members  arrived  in  1567 
and  the  audiencia  was  installed  at  Concepcion  "as  the  supreme 
court  of  the  colony,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  accordance  with 
the  royal  decree,  it  became  the  administrative  head  of  the 
government.  In  this  latter  capacity  it  undertook  to  reorganize 
the  military  forces."  Later,  in  1568,  Melchoir  Bravo  de  Sar- 
avia  assumed  the  office  and  functions  of  the  governorship  of 
Chile  (1568-1575)  and  the  audiencia  became  a  judicial  tribunal, 
without  other  attributes.8 

We  may  gather  from  these  various  citations  taken  from  the 
early  history  of  the  audiencias  of  South  America  that  these 
tribunals  not  only  exercised  the  authority  of  governing  ad 


5  Ibid.,  I,  276-301.     See  Recopilacion,  2-15-8. 
slbid.,  II,  82. 
-  Ibid.,  II,  16. 
.,  I,  361. 


308         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

interim,  but  that  they  had  permanent  governmental  and  adminis 
trative  powers  as  well.  It  would  seem,  as  Professor  Moses  has 
suggested,  that  the  original  purpose  of  the  Spanish  government 
had  been  to  entrust  the  executive  and  administrative  functions 
in  the  dependencies  to  the  audiencia,  and  that  the  endowment 
of  the  viceroys  and  captains-general  with  extensive  executive 
powers  was  an  expedient  to  which  Spain  was  obliged  to  turn 
after  the  breakdown  of  the  audiencia  as  an  administrative 
agency.  The  main  fact  to  be  emphasized  in  this  connection  is 
that  during  the  period  of  the  promulgation  of  the  laws  which 
we  are  now  studying,  the  minor  audiencias  were  exercising 
regular  governmental  powers. 

The  Audiencia  of  Mexico,  which  was  created  in  1527  to 
check  the  excesses  of  Hernan  Cortes,  had  participated  in  gov 
ernmental  affairs  even  before  the  events  described  above.  This 
tribunal,  which  was  composed  of  four  magistrates,  with  the 
notorious  Guzman  as  president,  conducted  the  residencies  of 
Cortes  and  his  followers,  and  after  obtaining  control  of  the 
government,  administered  affairs  to  suit  its  own  convenience.9 
It  was  at  this  time,  and  as  a  result  of  these  abuses,  Bancroft 
tells  us,  that  the  Spanish  government  decided  to  establish  a 
viceroyalty  in  New  Spain,  with  a  semiregal  court  and  regal 
pretensions.  A  new  tribunal  was  left  in  charge  of  govern 
mental  affairs  while  this  reform  was  being  inaugurated.  This 
second  audiencia  governed  with  great  satisfaction,  correcting 
the  abuses  of  its  predecessor  and  devoting  itself  to  various 
improvements.10 

Although  the  audiencia  of  1528-1535  exercised  the  adminis 
trative  functions  above  mentioned,  Bancroft  brings  forth  no 
evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  that  it  was  ever  the  royal 
intention  to  entrust  the  institution  of  the  audiencia  perma 
nently  with  administrative  authority.  He  states  that  as  early 


'•*  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  II,  273-295. 
10  Ibid.,  II,  318-340;  367-381. 


The  Audiencia  of  Mexico  309 

as  1530,  three  years  after  the  establishment  of  the  first  tribunal 
in  Mexico,  the  sovereigns  had  already  decided  to  establish  a 
viceroyalty.  Although  the  audiencia  was  entrusted  with  the 
government  for  a  few  years,  the  above  facts  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  this  was  only  a  temporary  arrangement.  The 
audiencia 's  chief  attributes  were  judicial,  and  we  have  repeat 
edly  noted  that  the  principal  object  of  its  establishment,  aside 
from  the  administration  of  justice,  was  to  check  the  abuses  of 
the  captain-general. 

Cortes  retained  his  rank  as  captain-general  after  the  audi 
encia  was  established.  The  conqueror  was  in  reality  reduced 
to  a  secondary  position,  and  he  was  compelled  repeatedly  to 
acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  audiencia.  His  commission 
was  recognized  by  the  tribunal  on  its  arrival,  but  soon  after 
its  establishment  the  oidores  exhibited  a  royal  order  requiring 
that  "Cortes,  in  all  his  operations,  should  consult  the  president 
and  oidores  and  act  only  on  their  approval."11  Even  in  his  field, 
as  commander  of  the  military  forces,  Cortes  was  subordinated 
to  the  tribunal,  and  the  audiencia  and  the  conqueror  quarrelled 
bitterly  over  practically  all  matters  which  presented  themselves 
for  solution.  The  audiencia  had  been  created  to  meet  extra 
ordinary  and  unusual  conditions.  It  was  the  business  of  the 
tribunal  to  correct  the  abuses  which  had  previously  been  in 
flicted  on  the  colony  by  Cortes,  and  it  did  so.  On  the  arrival 
of  Mendoza  in  1535,  however,  the  audiencia  surrendered  the 
control  of  administrative  affairs,  and  it  did  not  assume  them 
again,  except  in  the  regular  way  in  conjunction  with  the  vice 
roy,  until  it  next  served  to  administer  the  ad  interim  govern 
ment.12 


.,  II,  410. 

!2  An  audiencia  was  created  at  Compostela,  Nueva  Galicia,  in  1548. 
This  tribunal  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  audiencia  and  viceroy  in 
Mexico  as  did  that  of  Santa  Fe  de  Bogota  to  those  in  Lima.  The 
Audiencia  of  Nueva  Galicia  had  both  judicial  and  administrative  func 
tions,  exercising  its  jurisdiction  over  the  partldos  and  corrcgimientos, 
with  their  respective  alcaldes  and  corregidores.  It  concerned  itself, 


310         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

The  first  legal  provision  for  the  succession  of  the  audiencia 
in  Mexico,  according  to  Bancroft,  was  contained  in  the  royal 
instructions  to  Visitor  Valderrama,  who  arrived  in  Mexico  in 
1563.  These  instructions,  says  Bancroft,  provided  that  in 
the  event  of  the  death  or  inability  of  the  viceroy  to  discharge 
his  duties,  the  audiencia  should  rule  temporarily.13  This  was 
indeed  timely,  in  view  of  the  death  of  Viceroy  Velasco  011 
July  31,  1564.  The  audiencia,  which  was  legally  authorized  to 
take  charge  of  the  government,  was  under  investigation  when 
the  death  of  the  viceroy  occurred,  and  the  tribunal  was  domi 
nated  during  the  first  half  of  its  rule  by  the  visitor,  who,  Ban 
croft  tells  us,  was  virtually  viceroy.14  Valderrama  dismissed 
two  of  the  oidores,  and  sent  them  to  Spain.  The  audiencia  was 
even  less  able  to  administer  justice  during  the  early  part  of  its 
ad  interim  government  than  it  had  been  when  the  viceroy  was 
alive.  After  the  departure  of  the  visitor,  however,  the  audi 
encia  inaugurated  a  season  of  proscription  and  reprisal  which 
bade  fair  to  include  every  opponent  of  the  oidores  in  the 
colony.  Matters  had  reached  a  very  unsatisfactory  state, 
indeed,  wThen  the  new  viceroy,  the  Marques  de  Falces,  arrived 
at  Mexico  on  October  14,  1566.15 


moreover,  with  projects  of  conquest,  discovery,  the  development  of 
mines,  and  internal  improvement.  Subsequently  this  audiencia  was 
transferred  to  Guadalajara  and  given  that  name.  See  Recopilacion, 
2-15-7. 

is  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  II,  586. 

14  IUd.,  II,  602-7. 

is  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  1564,  while  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico 
was  governing  aci  interim,  the  voyage  of  Legaspi  and  Urdaneta  was 
undertaken,  and  the  first  permanent  settlement  was  made  in  the  Philip 
pines  by  authorization  of  that  tribunal.  Bancroft  (History  of  Mexico, 
II,  599-600)  is  both  indefinite  and  inaccurate  in  his  account  of  the  expe 
dition  of  Legaspi  and  Urdaneta  to  the  Philippines.  He  says:  "Finally 
on  the  21st  of  November,  1564,  the  squadron  sailed,  and  after  a  prosper 
ous  voyage,  reached  Luzon,  where  Legaspi  founded  the  city  of  Manila." 
It  is  well  known  that  Legaspi  did  not  sail  directly  to  Luzon,  as  Ban 
croft  implies,  but  he  visited  a  number  of  islands  in  the  Archipelago 
before  he  settled  at  Cebu  on  April  27,  1565.  Manila  was  not  formally 
claimed  until  May  19,  1571  (Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general.  I,  39; 
Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  An  historical  view,  113-119).  Bancroft  (op.  cit., 


311 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  next  important  law  dealing 
with  the  question  of  the  succession  was  not  promulgated  until 
1600,  a  continuance  of  this  survey  of  affairs  in  New  Spain  will 
not  be  necessary.  The  audiencia  there  did  not  again  assume 
the  government  until  1612,  and  then  only  for  a  very  short 
period.  We  have  already  noticed  the  conditions  under  which 
the  Audiencia  of  Mexico  was  created,  and  the  various  occa 
sions  on  which  it  assumed  charge  of  the  government.  Though 
entrusted  with  the  government  upon  its  establishment,  the  ex 
ample  set  by  three  years  of  its  unsatisfactory  rule  convinced 
the  Spanish  monarch  of  the  unwisdom  of  entrusting  such  gov 
ernmental  authority  to  the  audiencia  permanently.  Therefore, 
a  viceroy  was  sent  out  in  1535,  and  it  was  not  until  1563  that 
the  first  law  was  promulgated  which  provided  for  the  tempo 
rary  government  by  the  audiencia  when  there  was  a  vacancy 
in  the  office  of  viceroy.  This  was  thirteen  years  after  such  a 
law  had  been  promulgated  for  Peru,  and  fourteen  years  after 
an  audiencia  had  been  created,  with  all  the  functions  of  gov 
ernment,  at  Santa  Fe  de  -Bogota. 

The  cedilla  of  February  12,  1569,  following  in  sequence 
that  of  March  5,  1550,  provided  that  the  faculty  of  filling 
vacancies  among  the  oficialcs  reales,  in  case  of  death  or  re 
moval  from  office,  should  rest  with  the  viceroy,  president,  or  the 
audiencia,  if  the  latter  body  were  governing.16  This,  of  course, 
was  a  recognition  of  the  principle  of  the  assumption  of  the 
government  by  the  audiencia.  This  law  was  not  confined  in  its 
application  to  any  particular  territory,  but  was  general  in  its 


II,  743)  states  that  Manila  was  founded  in  1564  by  Miguel  de  Legaspi. 
Manila  was  a  prosperous  commercial  center  before  the  Spaniards  came 
to  the  Islands.  Dr.  James  A.  Robertson  in  his  article  entitled  ''Legaspi 
and  Philippine  colonization"  (see  American  Historical  Association, 
Annual  report,  1907,  I,  154),  states  on  the  basis  of  original  documents 
that  "this  well-situated  and  busy  trade  center  was  erected  into  a  Span 
ish  city  on  June  3,  1571,  and  on  the  24th  the  necessary  officials  were 
appointed."  Dr.  Robertson  states  in  a  note  (p.  154)  that  "possession 
was  taken  of  Luzon,  June  6,  1570." 
IB  Recopilacion,  8-4-24. 


312         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

scope  and  applicable  wherever  an  audiencia  existed.     It  was 
later  confirmed  by  the  cedula  of  August  24,  1619.17 

The  next  law  dealing  with  the  subject  of  succession  was 
promulgated  on  January  3,  1600.  It  applied  especially  to  New 
Spain,  and  it  provided  that  in  case  of  a  vacancy  in  the  office 
of  viceroy,  cither  by  death  or  by  promotion,  the  audiencia 
should  assume  charge  of  the  government  of  the  provinces 
there,  and  it  should  execute  the  duties  which  ordinarily  de 
volved  upon  the  viceroy,  performing  them  "as  he  could,  would 
and  ought  to  do."  It  furthermore  ordered  the  subordinate 
Audiencia  of  Guadalajara,  under  such  circumstances,  to  obey 
and  fulfill  the  orders  which  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico  might  give 
or  send,  in  the  same  manner  as  it  would  do,  were  those  orders 
issued  by  the  viceroy.18  Under  a  separate  title  on  this  same 
date  the  assumption  of  the  government  of  the  minor  dependen 
cies  of  Peru  and  New  Spain  by  the  respective  audiencias  was 
authorized  in  case  of  the  illness  or  absence  of  the  viceroy.  In 
other  words,  this  law  authorized  in  New  Spain  the  same  pro 
cedure  in  case  of  the  death  or  absence  of  the  viceroy  as  had 
already  prevailed  in  South  America  for  half  a  century. 

The  above  laws  form  a  precedent  for  the  subsequent  author 
ization  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  to  assume  charge  of  the 
government  on  the  death  of  the  governor.  This  authorization 
was  given  on  April  12,  1664,  but  the  Audiencia  of  Manila,  like 
those  of  Mexico  and  Lima,  had  already  assumed  the  functions 
of  the  executive  on  four  earlier  occasions,  and  the  king,  in  the 
cedilla  of  1664,  merely  recognized,  with  some  qualifications,  a 
practice  which  had  been  followed  in  the  Philippines  for  half  a 
century.  A  cedilla  dated  as  early  as  September  13,  1608,  had 
authorized  the  nomination  in  advance  by  the  Viceroy  of  New 
Spain  of  a  resident  of  the  Islands  to  assume  the  governorship 


a.,  3-2-47. 
is /bid.,  2-15-47  and  48. 


A  Precedent  313 

on  the  death  of  the  regular  governor.19  The  intention  of  this 
law  seems  to  have  been  to  guard  against  the  ills  incident  to  a 
vacancy  in  the  governorship  by  an  arrangement  whereby  some 
person  should  be  appointed  in  advance  and  thus  be  ready  to 
assume  the  command  without  delay.  Whatever  the  royal  in 
tentions  may  have  been,  this  law  was  never  effective  in  bring 
ing  about  the  benefits  for  which  it  was  designed.  In  fact,  this 
particular  provision  met  with  general  dissatisfaction  in  the 
Philippines,  and  the  audiencia,  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
custom  observed  in  other  parts  of  Spain's  dominions,  continued 
to  govern  on  the  demise  of  the  governor,  ruling  two  or  three 
years  on  some  occasions,  until  the  arrival  of  a  temporary  gov 
ernor,  sent  from  New  Spain.  So  flagrantly  was  the  prescribed 
method  of  procedure  violated  in  the  Philippines  that  in  1630, 
Visitor  Francisco  de  Eojas  y  Ornate  reminded  the  Council  of 
the  Indies  of  the  existing  law  (that  of  1608)  and  recommended 
that  henceforth  on  the  death  of  a  governor  the  audiencia 
should  have  nothing  to  do  with  administration,  but  that  one  of 
three  persons  secretly  designated  by  the  viceroy  should  take 
over  the  government  at  once,  thus  eliminating  all  possibility 
of  the  interference  of  the  tribunal.-0 

The  irregularities  and  inconveniences  arising  from  the  iii- 
efficacy  of  the  law  of  1608  led  to  the  promulgation  of  the 
cedulas  of  January  30,  1635,  and  of  April  2,  166-1,  and  to  the 
enactment  of  the  consulta  of  September  9,  1669.  These  regu 
lations  applied  exclusively  to  the  Philippines,  and  they  legalized 
the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  in  governmental  affairs  on 
the  death  of  the  governor.  The  first  of  these  admitted  the 
right  of  the  audiencia  to  administer  political  affairs,  but  or 
dered  that  military  defense  should  be  in  the  hands  of  a  person 


10  King  to  the  Audiencia,  November  23,  1774,  quotes  the  crduta  of 
September  13,  1608,  as  testimonio;  A.  I.,  105-2-9.  A  copy. of  this  cedula 
also  exists  in  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 

20  Testimonio  al  acuerdo  de  7.9  de  Julio  de  16~>.'i.  Audiencia  de  Manila. 
A.  I.,  67-6-3.  See  Reeopilacion,  2-15-58. 


314        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

appointed  in  advance  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain.  The 
cedula  of  April  2,  1664,  ordered  that  the  audiencia  should 
serve  temporarily  during  vacancies  in  the  governorship  until 
the  temporary  appointee  of  the  viceroy  should  arrive.  This 
law  further  prescribed  that  the  audiencia  should  assume  charge 
of  political  affairs  while  the  senior  magistrate  should  take  over 
the  military  command.  He  was  to  see  that  the  forces  and  de 
fenses  of  the  Islands  were  adequately  kept  up,  and  that  the 
soldiers  were  disciplined;  he  was  authorized  to  command  them 
in  case  of  insurrection  or  invasion.  The  camulta  of  September 
9,  1669,  above  referred  to,  re-enacted  the  cedula  of  April  2r 
1664,  but  in  addition  it  specifically  ordered  that  the  viceroy 
should  not  designate  a  temporary  governor  until  news  of  the 
death  of  the  regular  incumbent  was  received,  and  then  that 
no  resident  or  native  of  the  Philippines  should  be  appointed.21 

The  Council  of  the  Indies,  by  the  law  of  September  29,. 
1623,  had  already  sought  to  guard  against  any  undue  assump 
tion  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  audiencia  by  ordering  that 
when  the  viceroy  was  absent  from  the  capital  city,  but  \vithiii 
his  own  district,  he  should  still  retain  his  status  as  governor,, 
and  neither  the  audiencia  nor  any  of  the  oidores  should  inter 
fere  in  governmental  affairs.22  This  law  was  not  applicable  to 
the  Philippines  alone,  but  it  was  of  general  validity,  through 
out  Spain's  dominions.  The  control  of  the  audiencia  in  gov 
ernmental  affairs  was  only  to  become  effective  when  the  gov 
ernor  was  absent  from  the  colony,  or  incapacitated  through 
sickness  or  death.  Otherwise  the  governor's  sphere  of  authority 
was  to  be  recognized  by  the  tribunal. 

A  variety  of  laws  exist  in  the  Recopilacion  prescribing  the 
duties  and  conduct  of  the  audiencia  when  it  had  charge  of 


21  Copies  of  the  cedula  of  January  30,  1635,  and  of  April  2,  1664,  and 
of  the  consulta  of  September  9,  1669,  exist  in  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 

22  keoopilacion,  2-15-45.     It  will  be  seen  that  this  law  was  slightly 
modified  by  laws  promulgated  in  the  eighteenth  century. 


Regulations  for  the  Audiencia  315 

governmental  affairs,  and  defining  the  relationship  which  should 
exist  between  the  oidorcs  under  such  conditions.  The  magis 
trates  were  ordered  to  proceed  harmoniously  and  moderately 
both  in  the  execution  of  governmental  affairs  and  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice,  not  erring  either  on  the  side  of  ex 
cessive  severity,  or  of  undue  moderation.  They  were  to 
devote  special  attention  to  the  increase  and  care  of  the  royal 
revenue  during  these  times.23  The  right  to  grant  encomwndas, 
essentially  the  function  of  the  governing  authority,  was  con 
ceded  to  the  audiencia  when  it  acted  in  the  capacity  of  gov 
ernor.  All  such  concessions  ultimately  had  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  king.  On  these  occasions,  also,  the  audiencia  filled  vacan 
cies  and  made  appointments.  However,  the  oidores  were 
warned  against  discharging  officials  and  vacating  offices  in 
order  to  fill  them  with  their  dependents  and  friends.24  All 
appointments  made  by  the  audiencia  were  to  become  void  after 
the  arrival  of  a  regular  governor,  unless  they  had  subsequently 
received  the  royal  confirmation.  When  a  vacancy  arose,  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  senior  magistrate  to  propose  a  candidate,  but 
the  actual  filling  of  the  place  was  to  be  effected  by  the  acuerdo 
vote  of  the  entire  audiencia.25 

The  laws  provided  that  the  audiencia,  as  a  body,  should  ex 
ercise  two  distinct  types  or  classes  of  powers  when  in  charge 
of  the  government.  These  were  designated  as  governmental 
and  military.  The  exercise  of  these  functions  was  assigned 
respectively  to  the  audiencia  as  a  body,  and  to  the  senior 
magistrate,  individually.  While  an  effort  was  made  to  insure 
the  fair  and  equal  participation  of  all  in  government  in  case 
of  a  vacancy,  the  senior  magistrate  assumed  the  position  and 
honors  of  the  executive,  though  not  granted  all  the  governor's 
powers.26  In  the  functions  and  duties  of  administration  all 
the  magistrates  were  to  participate.  As  noted  above,  each  was 


23  ibid.,  60.  2r>  Ibid.,  9-11. 

Z.,  56;   3-2-12,  13,  53,  28-33.  20  /&M.,  19. 


316         Audiencia  an'd  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

to  have  a  share  in  the  exercise  of  the  appointing  power,  the 
administration  of  colonial  finances,  participation  in  the  acuerdo, 
and  in  every  other  function  except  defense,  which  was  en 
trusted  to  the  senior  oidor.  In  this  capacity,  the  oidor  was 
always  the  most  prominent  figure  in  the  government.  Among 
those  who  distinguished  themselves  through  the  exercise  of  this 
power  were  Rojas,  Morga,  Alcaraz,  Bonifaz,  Coloma,  Monte- 
mayor,  and  above  all,  Anda.  Although  these  men  wrere  assisted 
and  supported  by  their  colleagues  of  the  audiencia,  and  the 
parts  played  by  the  latter  were  not  without  importance,  the 
periods  of  rule  of  the  audiencia  are  always  identified  with  the 
names  of  the  senior  old-ores,  while  those  of  the  ordinary  magis 
trates  are  forgotten. 

A  complete  understanding  of  the  governmental  functions 
and  authority  of  the  audiencia,  and  the  relation  of  the  latter  to 
the  other  departments  of  government  under  these  conditions 
may  best  be  obtained  by  a  review  of  the  circumstances  and 
conditions  of  the  audiencia 's  rule  during  vacancies  in  the 
Philippines.  The  first  occasion  which  in  any  way  approached 
the  temporary  rule  of  an  audiencia  in  the  Philippines  was  in 
1593,  after  the  murder  of  Governor  Gomez  Perez  Dasmarifias. 
Pedro  de  Rojas,  who  had  been  a  magistrate  of  the  audiencia 
when  it  was  suppressed  in  1589,  was  at  that  time  sole  judge, 
with  the  additional  rank  of  lieutenant-governor  and  ase&or, 
standing  next  to  the  governor  in  authority.27  After  the  death 
of  Gomez  Perez  Dasmarinas,  Rojas  had  occupied  the  governor's 
chair  less  than  a  year  when  he  was  succeeded  by  the  deceased  gov 
ernor's  son,  Luis  Perez  Dasmarifias,  who  became  governor  on  the 
authority  of  a  royal  order  found  among  the  papers  of  his 
father,  whereby  he  was  given  the  power  to  name  his  successor.28 
His  tenure  seems  to  have  been  only  temporary,  however,  for  as 


27  Montero  y  Vidal,   Historia   general,    I,   94;    Martinez   de   Ziiniga, 
An  historical  view,  I,  184-192. 
.,  I,  192. 


First  Ride  of  the  Audiencia  317 

soon  as  news  reached  the  court  of  the  death  of  the  elder 
Dasmariiias,  Francisco  Tello  de  Guzman  was  appointed  perma 
nent  governor  and  an  audiencia  was  sent  to  the  Islands,  arriv 
ing  at  Manila  in  1596. 2D  Meanwhile  Rojas  was  succeeded  as 
lieutenant-governor  and  asesor  by  Antonio  de  Morga.  Accord 
ing  to  Montero  y  Vidal,  Dasmarinas  turned  over  the  govern 
ment  to  Morga  in  1595,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  Morga 
assumed  the  temporary  governorship  when  Dasmariiias  was  in 
Cambodia  and  elsewhere  fighting  against  the  Dutch.  In  fact, 
this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  Zuniga.30  At  any  rate,  Morga 
administered  both  governmental  and  military  affairs  on  several 
occasions  when  the  various  governors  were  absent  from  the 
Islands,  engaged  in  expeditions  of  conquest. 

On  the  suppression  of  the  audiencia  in  1589,  the  adminis 
tration  of  justice  remained  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  lieu 
tenant-governor  and  asesor.  This  position  was  first  occupied 
by  Rojas,  and  later  by  Morga,  who  succeeded  to  the  same 
judicial  duties  and  enjoyed  the  same  prerogatives  as  had 
formerly  belonged  to  the  audiencia.  In  the  absence  of  the 
tribunal,  therefore,  they  assumed  functions  which  elsewhere 
were  carried  out  by  the  audiencia  on  the  death  of  the  governor 
or  viceroy,  partly  because  they  had  taken  the  place  of  the  audi 
encia,  and  partly  because  they  were  lieutenants-governor. 
After  the  audiencia  was  re-established  in  1598,  Morga  continued 
in  charge  of  military  affairs  when  the  governor  was  absent  or 
dead,  while  the  audiencia  administered  the  government,  not 
by  virtue  of  any  laws  relating  especially  to. the  Philippines,  but 
seemingly  because  this  was  the  general  practice  in  all  of 
Spain's  colonies.  Morga 's  defense  of  Manila  against  the  Dutch 
in  1600  has  been  referred  to  in  an  earlier  chapter. 


2!>7birZ.,  I,  199. 

3"  Montero  y  Vidal,  op.  cit..  I,  106-107;   Martinez  de  Ziiniga,  o/>.  cit.. 
I,  195. 


318         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

Not  only  did  the  audiencia  do  much  in  defense  against 
outside  enemies  at  this  time,  but  it  carried  on  offensive 
operations  against  them  in  the  Moluccas  after  the  deaths 
of  Governors  Tello  and  Acufia.  The  Japanese  who  were  resid 
ing  in  the  city  also  caused  trouble,  and  the  audiencia  was  un 
der  the  necessity  of  taking  repressive  measures  against  them.31 
In  1606,  while  Governor  Acuna  was  absent  from  the  colony, 
the  fortification  of  Cavite,  the  equipment  of  a  fleet  and  the 
defense  of  the  city  were  undertaken  and  carried  out  success 
fully  by  Oidor  Almansa.32  Then  on  the  death  of  Governor 
Acuna  the  audiencia  succeeded  to  the  government  and  it  man 
aged  affairs  from  June  24,  1606,  to  June  15,  1608,  with  Al 
mansa  in  charge  of  military  affairs. 

The  various  governmental  matters  with  which  the  audiencia 
concerned  itself  during  this  period  are  shown  in  a  memorial 
which  it  sent  to  the  king  on  July  6,  1606.  After  reporting 
the  death  of  Governor  Acufia,  and  its  succession  to  the  govern 
ment,  the  audiencia  took  up  questions  of  finance  and  commerce. 
It  stated  that  the  money  in  the  treasury  was  insufficient  for 
the  necessary  expenses  of  the  colony,  owing  to  the  extraordi 
nary  outlays  which  had  been  necessary  to  defray  the  costs  of 
the  wars  and  expeditions  which  had  been  undertaken  at  this 
time.  The  audiencia  suggested  that  the  galleon  returns  be 
increased  from  500,000  to  1,000,000  pesos  a  year.  It  was 
pointed  out  in  this  connection  that  the  total  cost  of  transport- 


31  Morga's  Sucesos,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVI,  61. 

32  Acuna  designated  Almansa  to  supervise  military  affairs  instead  of 
Oidor  Maldonado,  who  was  in  reality  senior  magistrate,  and  as  such 
should  have  assumed   the  direction  of  military  affairs   in   accordance 
with  the  practice  elsewhere,  and  in  compliance  with  the  laws  of  the 
Indies.     The  fiscal  objected  to  this  illegal  procedure,  as  he  termed  it, 
alleging  that  the  governor  was  not  authorized  by  law  to  choose  his  own 
successor.     He  pointed  out  that,   according  to  the  existing  laws,  the 
senior  magistrate  should  succeed  to  the  military  command  by  his  own 
right,  without  the  interference  either  of  the  governor  or  the  audiencia. 
Notwithstanding  this  protest,  Almansa  continued  to  hold  the  post  of 
acting  captain-general,  for  which  it  was  said  that  he  was  better  fitted 
than  Maldonado. 


The  Audicncia's  Duties  319 

ing  goods  from  Manila  to  Acapulco,  including  freight  and 
duty,  aggregated  thirty  per  cent  of  their  value,  leaving  to  the 
merchants  a  profit  of  only  350,000  pesos.  The  oidores  admitted 
that  this  arrangement  might  have  been  ample  and  satisfactory 
when  the  colony  was  small  or  when  there  was  peace,  but  at 
that  time,  when  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  had  been  forced 
to  expend  so  much  of  their  revenue  for  defense,  a  larger  return 
was  necessary.33  Further  recommendations  were  made  regard 
ing  commerce  and  the  management  of  the  galleons.  It  was  said 
that  their  great  size  encouraged  smuggling;  in  order  to  avoid 
this,  and  at  the  same  time  to  contribute  to  the  revenues  of  the 
colony,  it  was  urged  that  the  ships  should  carry  cargo  to  the 
limit  of  their  capacity,  instead  of  being  restricted  to  an  in 
sufficient  amount.  Large  reductions  of  salaries  of  ships'  offi 
cers,  soldiers,  and  sailors  were  urged.  The  oidores  did  not 
think  it  advisable  to  forbid  the  crews  and  officers  of  the  gal 
leons  to  trade,  however,  since  their  interest  in  the  cargo  would 
encourage  them  to  be  obedient  and  loyal.34  The  audiencia 


33  Audiencia  to  Felipe  III,  July  6,  1606,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIV, 
140-148.  These  demands  were  ultimately  met  by  a  subsidy  from  the 
treasury  of  New  Spain.  It  may  be  remarked  in  this  connection  that  the 
oidores  were  probably  interested  in  somewhat  more  than  increased 
revenue  for  defense,  since  they  were  known  to  have  been  absorbed  in 
commercial  ventures.  This  episode  marks  the  beginning  of  a  struggle 
on  the  part  of  the  Manila  merchants  for  increased  trading  privileges — • 
a  battle  which  continued  until  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
They  were  opposed  by  the  merchants  of  Cadiz  and  Seville,  and  it  was 
in  the  interest  of  these  last-mentioned  cities  that  the  Manila  trade  was 
restricted  (Royal  order  of  November  10,  1605,  and  King  to  the  Audi 
encia,  February  6,  1606,  A.  I.,  105-2-1). 

s*  Although  the  laws  of  the  Indies  forbade  the  oidores  from  trading 
(Recopilacion,  2-16-59,  60,  62,  64,  66),  and  the  correspondence  of  the 
period  shows  that  the  old-ores  were  at  first  denied  trading  privileges, 
(King  to  Conde  de  Monterrey,  April  14,  1597;  A.  I.,  105-2-1),  they 
were  allowed  to  send  to  Spain  sufficient  cloth,  silk  and  other  dress 
materials  for  their  own  use  and  for  that  of  their  families  (Rcco-pila- 
cion,  2-16-63).  This  last-mentioned  privilege  was  abused,  however, 
until  the  right  of  each  official  to  send  only  a  limited  amount  of  cargo 
on  the  galleon  was  generally  recognized.  For  example,  the  cargo  list  of 
the  galleon  "Trinidad"  in  1753,  shows  that  ministers  were  assigned  six 
boletas,  or  bales,  of  the  nominal  value  of  125  pesos  each — that  being 
only  half  the  amount  usually  allowed.  This  reduction,  effected  by 


320        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Ride 

concluded  its  memorial  with  an  appeal  for  the  reform  of  the 
freight  and  customs  charges  011  the  galleon.  The  abolition  of 
all  fixed  duties  was  recommended ;  instead,  it  was  suggested  that 
these  duties  be  graduated  to  meet  the  regular  expenses  of  the 
colony  as  they  were  incurred  year  by  year.  This  recommenda 
tion  was  made  on  the  basis  of  the  theory  that  duties  should  not 
be  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the  king's  exchequer,  but  only  for 
the  support  and  maintenance  of  the  merchants  and  inhabitants 
of  the  colony.35  This  memorial  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  audiencia,  when  acting  in  the  capacity  of  governor,  exer 
cised  considerable  authority  and  assumed  entire  responsibility 
for  the  commercial  and  financial  affairs  of  the  colony. 

Zuniga,  after  describing  the  success  of  Oidor  Almansa  in 
putting  down  an  insurrection  of  the  Japanese,  characterized 
the  administration  of  affairs  by  the  audiencia  during  this 
period  as  follows : 

The  Royal  Audience  conducted  themselves  with  great  approbation 
in  the  civil  administration,  until  the  year  1608,  when  Don  Rodrigo 
Vivero  of  Laredo,  who  was  named  by  the  Viceroy  as  Governor  (id- 
interim,  arrived  at  Manila,  and  having  had  great  experience  in  the 
management  of  the  Indians  in  New  Spain,  he  availed  himself  of  it 
on  this  occasion,  giving  instructions  to  that  effect  to  the  chief  judges, 
and  other  ministers  of  justice.  He  governed  with  much  satisfaction 


Governor  Arandia,  caused  much  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  au 
diencia  (Expedientc  of  January  30,  1754;  A.  I.,  108-3-11).  The  officials 
having  first  claim  on  the  right  to  send  goods  in  the  galleon  were  those 
of  the  municipal  cabiJdo  of  Manila.  On  March  27,  1714,  they  were 
conceded  the  right  to  ship  132  fardiUos,  the  specifications  of  which 
were  not  given.  It  was  mentioned,  however,  in  the  consulta  which 
recommended  this  bestowal  that  this  was  a  re-enactment  of  the  grant  of 
1699,  and  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  king  to  be  generous  to  the 
regidorcs  in  this  matter  because  they  were  not  given  salaries  (A.  I., 
68-2-8).  The  royal  order  of  June  30.  1786,  bestowed  on  the  regidorcs 
the  right  to  ship  one  ton  of  goods.  This  right  was  confirmed  by  the 
consulta  of  October  7,  1789  (A.  I.,  105-3-5).  The  cMula  of  April  25, 
1803,  conceded  five  bolctas,  each  valued  at  one  hundred  pesos,  to 
each  rcyidor.  The-  oidorcs  were  each  allowed  ten  toletas  by  this 
ctdula  (A.  I.,  106-2-15). 

-5  Audiencia  to  Felipe  III,  July  6,  1606,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIV, 
147. 


Exclusion  from  Military  Control  321 

for  one  year,  when  he  delivered  up  the  insignia  of  his  office,  and  re 
turned  to  Mexico.se 

Vivero  arrived  in  the  colony  011  June  15,  1608.  Vivero  was 
the  first  of  the  military  governors  appointed  from  New  Spain. 
Under  this  and  succeeding  arrangements,  these  governors  exer 
cised  absolute  control  of  military  affairs,  while  the  audiencia 
concerned  itself  solely  with  matters  of  government,  the  senior 
magistrate,  of  course,  not  participating  in  military  affairs. 

Vivero  was  relieved  in  1609  by  Governor  Juan  de  Silva, 
who  had  a  permanent  appointment  and  served  for  seven  years. 
Silva 's  administration  was  characterized  by  his  military  ex 
ploits,  chief  among  which  was  his  defense  of  the  colony  against 
the  attacks  of  the  Dutch  pirate,  Wittert,  and  subsequently  of 
Spielberg.  These  frequent  expeditions  gave  the  audiencia 
many  opportunities  to  assume  charge  of  affairs,  and  after 
Silva 's  death  in  the  Moluccas  the  tribunal  ruled  from  April 
19,  1616,  to  June  8,  1619.  During  a  part  of  this  time  Andres 
de  Alcaraz,  the  senior  magistrate,  exercised  the  duties  of 
captain-general,  successfully  defending  the  city  against  the 
Dutch.  On  September  30,  1617,  the  office  of  military  governor 
devolved  on  Geronimo  de  Silva,  who  was  especially  desig 
nated  for  the  post  by  the  royal  order  of  March  20,  1616. 37 
He  was  not  an  oidor,  however,  but  had  served  as  governor  of 
Ternate,  having  recently  returned  from  the  Moluccas.38 

While  the  post  of  captain-general  devolved  upon  Silva,  the 
audiencia  retained  control  of  administrative  affairs  in  the  col 
ony  until  Alonso  Fajardo  y  Tenza,  the  next  royal  appointee, 
arrived  on  June  8,  1618,  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  governor 
and  captain-general.  As  we  have  already  seen,  Alcaraz  was 
relieved  of  his  military  responsibilities  on  September  30,  1617, 


so  Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  An  historical  view,  I,  230-331. 

37  Ibid.,  I,  239,  et  seq.;  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  162,  et 
seq. 

ss  Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  op.  cit.,  I,  241;  Montero  y  Vidal,  op.  cit.,  I, 
166. 


322         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

and  was  at  once  obliged  to  submit  to  residencia.  In  this  trial 
he  was  compelled  to  answer  for"  his  failure  to  warn  the  Chinese 
traders,  who  usually  approached  the  Islands  at  that  time  of 
the  year,  of  the  presence  of  the  Dutch.  As  a  result  of  his 
oversight  in  this  matter,  a  large  quantity  of  merchandise,  in 
cluding  provisions  for  the  city,  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  enemy.  He  was  also  .  held  accountable  for  the  disaster 
which  had  occurred  to  a  portion  of  the  Spanish  fleet  in  the 
battle  of  Playa  Honda  through  the  appointment  of  the  son  of 
one  of  the  oidores  to  its  command.39  Alcaraz,  senior  oidor, 
who  was  legally  responsible  for  defense,  was  compelled  to  an 
swer  for  the  failure  of  this  inefficient  commander.  The  choice 
of  a  relative  of  one  of  the  oidores  was  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  the  Indies.40  Although  Oidor  Alcaraz  seems  to  have  acquit 
ted  himself  well  of  his  duties  as  commander  of  the  military 
forces,  seven  galleons  were  lost  in  an  expedition  to  the  Moluccas 
during  the  rule  of  the  audiencia,  and  considerable  difficulty  was 
experienced  in  fixing  responsibility  for  this  disaster.  Alcaraz 
claimed  that  Silva  was  answerable;  the  latter  maintained  that 
the  audiencia  was  to  blame,  and  the  audiencia  disclaimed  re 
sponsibility  because,  it  alleged,  "the  audiencia  was  entrusted 
with  government  and  not  war."  In  an  investigation  ultimately 
made  in  1625,  Silva  was  deprived  of  his  office  and  was  pre 
vented  from  leaving  the  Islands. 

Governor  Fajardo  has  left  us  a  number  of  comments  and 
criticisms  of  the  work  of  the  audiencia  as  governor.  His  ob 
servations  are  timely  and  appropriate,  since  the  tribunal  had 
been  in  charge  of  the  government  for  two  years  preceding  his 
rule,  and  he  was  brought  intimately  in  touch  with  the  deeds 
and  mistakes  of  the  previous  administration.41  Fajardo 's  com 
ments  relate  to  the  abuse  of  the  appointing  power  by  the 


39  Inventario  de  Rcsidencias,  A.  I.  op.  clt. 

40  King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  9,  1609,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

41  See  Chapter  VII,  notes  49  to  56. 


Defects  323 

audiencia,  and  the  failure  of  that  body  to  provide  adequately 
for  the  defense  of  the  colony.  In  support  of  the  former 
charge,  Fajardo  said  that  the  magistrates  had  appointed  several 
officials  for  life,  which  was  forbidden  by  the  laws,  since  the 
audiencia  was  only  permitted  to  fill  offices  for  the  period  of  its 
rule.42  The  audiencia  had  also  infringed  upon  the  prerogatives 
of  the  governor  by  the  permanent  bestowal  of  encomiendas. 
Fajardo  stated  that  when  he  arrived  in  the  Islands  he  found 
all  the  offices  and  encomiendas  filled  with  friends  and  depend 
ents  of  the  aidores.  Thus  as  a  direct  consequence  the  success 
of  his  administration  was  impaired  by  the  presence  of  officials 
who  regarded  him,  their  chief,  with  hostility.  He  cited  an  in 
stance  in  which  similar  infringements  upon  the  rights  of  the 
viceroy  by  the  Audiencia  of  Mexico  had  been  nullified  by  the 
royal  veto,  and  he  urged  that  some  definite  cedilla  or  law 
should  be  promulgated  relative  to  these  matters  in  the  Philip 
pines.43 

The  difficulty  of  fixing  responsibility  for  the  loss  of  the 
galleons  in  the  expedition  to  the  Moluccas  led  Fajardo  to 
criticise  the  practice  of  allowing  the  audiencia  to  assume  con 
trol  of  affairs  during  vacancies.  He  regarded  it  as  a  cumbrous 
proceeding  which  could  only  result  in  chaotic  and  incompetent 
government.  No  better  results  could  be  expected  when  a  body 
of  magistrates  and  lawyers  undertook  to  rule  an  isolated  colony, 
and  especially  when  one  of  them  assumed  responsibility  for 
military  affairs,  which  could  not  be  successfully  carried  out  by 
any  but  a  military  man.  He  emphasized  the  necessity  of  locat- 


42  Recopilacion,  2-15-56;  3-2-47;  3-2-11  and  12. 

«  Fajardo  to  Felipe  III,  August  10,  1618,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVIII, 
127.  In  regard  to  the  points  covered  in  the  above  letter  of  Fajardo, 
the  audiencia  legally  lacked  the  power  of  granting  encomiendas  at  this 
time,  although  it  undoubtedly  bestowed  them,  nevertheless.  The  power 
to  grant  encomiend-as  for  the  period  of  its  temporary  rule  was  granted 
October  24,  1655.  Moreover,  by  cedillas  of  May  25,  1596,  August  24, 
1619,  and  September  5,  1620,  the  audiencia  was  conceded  authority  to 
make  temporary  appointments  to  offices  when  it  assumed  the  govern 
ment  ad  interim  (Recopilacion,  2-15-56;  3-2-47;  3-2-11  and  12). 


324        Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

ing  responsibility  for  every  department  of  government  in  a 
central  authority.  He  recommended  the  designation  of  "two 
military  men  of  such  standing  and  ability  that,  when  the  gov 
ernor  and  captain-general  is  absent,  they  might  succeed  to 
those  duties."44  He  considered  it  advisable  that  during  vacan 
cies,  as  well  as  when  the  regular  governor  was  present,  au 
thority  should  rest  with  one  person  and  not  be  scattered  or 
divided  among  a  number  of  magistrates. 

Geronimo  de  Silva  had  been  given  a  commission  from  the 
viceroy  to  assume  the  post  of  captain-general,  and  upon  the 
demise  of  Fajardo  in  1624,  he  took  charge  of  military  affairs, 
while  the  audiencia  retained  the  government.  Silva 's  responsi 
bility  for  the  loss  of  the  ships  in  1617,  already  referred  to,  as 
well  as  for  other  disasters  in  1624,  caused  him  to  be  removed 
from  the  command  and  confined  in  Fort  Santiago  where  he 
remained  until  released  by  the  new  temporary  governor,  Fer 
nando  de  Silva,  who  arrived  in  1625.  The  latter  commanded 
the  military  forces,  while  the  audiencia  administered  the  gov 
ernment.45 

Of  far-reaching  importance  was  the  action  of  the  audiencia 
in  1624,  in  nullifying  the  action  taken  by  the  former  governor, 
Alonso  Fajardo,  relative  to  the  construction  of  a  seminary 
for  Japanese  priests  and  students.  This  edifice  had  been  par- 


«  Fajardo  to  Felipe  III,  August  10,  1618,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XVIII,  124-125. 

43  Martinez  de  Zuniga,  An  historical  view,  I,  250-251.  The  latter 
Silva  was  a  relative  of  the  viceroy,  the  Marques  de  Cerralbo.  He  was 
well  known  in  the  Philippines,  where  he  had  formerly  resided  and 
married  the  daughter  of  an  influential  resident.  He  held  the  temporary 
governorship  about  a  year.  It  was  during  his  administration,  and 
through  his  efforts,  that  the  first  Spanish  expedition  was  made  to  For 
mosa,  Silva  having  ordered  the  alcalde  mayor  of  Cagayan  to  land  there 
with  a  military  force  and  establish  fortifications.  This  was  done; 
thereupon  a  large  number  of  Dominican  friars  sought  and  obtained 
permission  for  the  spiritual  conquest  of  the  Island.  Zufiiga  says  that 
the  latter  "exerted  themselves  with  such  zeal,  that  in  a  short  time  they 
built  several  towns,  and  were  able  to  number  the  greater  part  of  the 
natives  among  the  professors  of  our  faith"  (ibid.,  I,  252-253;  Montero  y 
Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  180-181). 


Defense  325 

tially  constructed  when  the  audiencia  took  over  the  government. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  oidores,  although  not  collec 
tively  responsible  for  the  defense  of  the  colony,  took  a  stand 
011  this  occasion  in  a  matter  which  had  to  do  with  the  common 
security.  The  objections  of  the  oidores  were  significant.  The 
location  of  the  seminary  within  three  hundred  feet  of  the  wall 
was  thought  to  be  unwise  in  view  of  the  danger  of  a  Japanese 
revolt.  The  Japanese  emperor  had  signified  his  disapproval  of 
Christianity  011  many  occasions  by  banishing  and  torturing 
numerous  friars  who  had  gone  to  Japan  from  the  Islands.  He 
had  forbidden  the  worship  and  propagation  of  Christianity  in 
his  empire.  There  were  at  that  time  rumors  of  an  impending 
conquest  of  China  and  the  Philippines  by  the  Japanese,  conse 
quently  the  audiencia  did  not  wish  to  invite  the  emperor's 
wrath  upon  the  colony  by  attempting  to  proselyte  his  subjects. 
The  audiencia  thought  best  to  stop  this  before  the  displeasure 
and  enmity  of  the  Japanese  were  incurred.  Fear  of  the  loss 
of  trade  with  China,  dread  of  an  alliance  of  the  Japanese  with 
the  Dutch,  making  probable  a  concerted  attack  on  the  Philip 
pines,  and  the  danger  of  an  outbreak  of  the  Japanese  already 
within  the  colony  in  conjunction  with  an  attack  by  those  with 
out,  were  all  considerations  which  induced  the  audiencia  to 
take  responsibility  upon  itself  in  this  matter.46 

The  official  correspondence  of  the  governor  following  imme 
diately  upon  the  administration  of  an  audiencia  is  always  valu 
able  as  showing  the  state  of  affairs  under  the  preceding  rule. 
That  of  Fernando  de  Silva  coincides  closely  with  the  corre 
spondence  of  Governor  Fajardo  in  charging  the  audiencia  with 
many  misdeeds,  chief  among  which  were  the  abuse  of  the  ap 
pointing  power  and  the  concession  of  encomiendas  without  au 
thorization.  Silva,  on  his  accession  to  the  governorship,  also 
found  the  finances  of  the  colony  in  a  bad  condition,  great  waste 


•i(i  Audiencia  to  the  King,  July  24  and  August  15,  1624,  Blair  and 
Robertson,  XXI,  84-97. 


326        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

having  been  incurred  in  their  administration.  There  had  been 
neither  peace  nor  order;  the  aidores  had  quarreled  among 
themselves,  and  residents  were  leaving  the  city  as  a  consequence 
of  this  turmoil.  The  oidores  had,  without  cause,  dismissed  all 
the  officials  appointed  by  Fajardo,  filling  their  places  with 
their  friends.47  The  following  account  of  the  excesses  of  the 
audiencia  was  given  by  Silva : 

Under  pretext  of  the  arrest  and  removal  of  Don  Geronimo  de  Silva, 
Licentiate  Legaspi,  .  .  .  exercised  the  office  of  captain-general,  carry 
ing  the  staff  of  office  and  making  them  lower  the  banners  to  him, 
and  address  him  as  ''your  Lordship,"  and  his  wife  as  "my  lady."  He 
immediately  appointed  his  elder  son  to  the  post  of  sargento-mayor  of 
this  camp,  and  his  younger  son  to  a  company,  while  another  company 
was  assigned  to  a  relative  of  Auditor  Matias  Flores  y  Cassila  (also  an 
oidor).  Others  were  assigned  to  brothers  of  the  said  Don  Matias,  the 
fiscal,  and  other  auditors,  except  Don  Albaro  (Messa  y  Lugo),  who  re 
fused  to  have  anything  given  to  his  household.  Upon  seeing  the  ille 
gality  of  these  appointments,  I  issued  an  act  declaring  them  vacant 
and  restoring  those  posts  to  those  who  had  held  them  before. -4* 

That  the  king  had  not  entirely  lost  confidence  in  the  audi 
encia,  notwithstanding  the  above  complaints,  is  attested  by  the 
instruction  issued  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies  to  Francisco  de 
Rojas  y  Ornate,  royal  visitor  to  the  Philippines.49  This  com 
munication,  which  was  dated  August  17,  1628,  approved  the 
stand  which  the  audiencia  had  taken  in  insisting  that  all  money 


47  Silva  to  Felipe   IV,  August  4,  1625,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXII, 
62-78. 

48  ibid.,  XXII,  66.     The  governor  estimated  the  services  of  the  mag 
istrates  in  a  special  report  to  the  king  on  July  30,  1626.     He  stated 
that  Messa  was  "an  upright  judge,  and  zealous  in  the  service  of  your 
Majesty."     His  comments  on  the  other  three  were  as   follows:      "Ge 
ronimo  de  Lagaspi  does  what  his  two  sons  wish,  whom,  on   account 
of  their  reckless  lives,  the  governors  cannot  employ,  and  thus  they  are 
unable  to  satisfy  their  father,  who  is  not  contented  except  with  favors. 
Don  Juan  de  Valderrama  does  as  his  wife  says;  and  Don  Matias  Flores, 
although  a  young  man,  is  less  harmful;    ...   He  makes  all  the  profit 
he  can  from  the  office,  and  on  the  whole  is  not  acceptable  to  the  com 
munity,  which  is  always  disturbed  by  him"   (Silva  to  Felipe  IV,  July 
30,  1626,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXII,  102). 

49  Instructions   to   Francisco   de  Rojas   y   Ornate,   August    17,    1628, 
A.  I.,  105-2-1. 


Limitations  327 

obtained  from  Chinese  trading-licenses  should  be  put  into  the 
royal  treasury  and  accounted  for  by  the  oficiales  reales  before 
it  was  spent.  It  appears  that  the  governor  had  hitherto  used 
this  money  as  an  extra  fund  upon  which  to  draw  for  the  ex 
penses  of  the  colony.  The  king  also  approved  the  attitude  of 
the  audiencia  in  denying  to  persons  in  New  Spain  the  right  of 
using  the  Manila  galleon  for  the  shipment  of  their  goods,  and 
in  refusing  to  allow  money  sent  by  them  to  the  Islands  to  be 
invested  in  the  Chinese  trade.  Silva  contended  that  the  audi 
encia  had  no  right  to  intervene  in  either  of  the  above  matters, 
but  in  this  Silva  was  not  sustained,  Rojas  y  Ornate  being  in 
structed  to  see  that  Governor  Tavora  respected  the  action  of  the 
audiencia  in  the  two  particulars  referred  to.50 

The  audiencia  assumed  management  of  political  affairs  in 
1632,  on  the  death  of  Governor  Juan  Nino  de  Tavora,  but 
neither  the  audiencia  as  a  body,  nor  the  senior  oidor  personally 
were  entrusted  with  the  military  command.  This  responsibility 
devolved  on  Lorenzo  de  Olazo.  the  maestre  de  'campo,  who  had 
been  designated  by  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain  to  assume  tem 
porary  charge  of  military  affairs.  He  was  succeeded  the  fol 
lowing  year  by  Juan  Cerezo  de  Salamanca,  who  had  been  sent 
from  Mexico  by  the  viceroy  as  soon  as  the  death  of  Tavora 
was  announced  in  that  city.  Cerezo  served  ad  interim  for 
three  years,  and  during  his  administration  the  audiencia  acted 
solely  as  a  judicial  body,  not  attempting  to  interfere  in  govern 
mental  or  militarv  affairs/'1  It  was  under  the  rule  of  this  erov- 


5°  See  Royal  Instructions  to  Rojas  y  Ornate  and  Tavora  (dupli 
cates),  June  4,  1627,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

si  Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  An  historical  view,  I,  2G4-266,  Montero  y 
Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  189-200.  The  method  of  filling  vacancies  in 
the  governorship  during  this  period  was  described  in  a  letter  from 
Governor  Corcuera,  Cerezo's  successor,  to  the  king,  dated  June  30,  1636. 
He  wrote:  "Your  Majesty  has  conceded  to  your  viceroys  of  Nueva 
Espana  authority,  in  case  of  deaths  and  vacancies  in  this  government, 
to  send  commissions  to  those  who  are  to  have  charge  of  military  mat 
ters;  and  until  the  arrival  of  the  regularly  appointed  governor  you 
order  them  to  send  another  governor  from  Mexico"  (Corcuera  to  Felipe 
IV,  June  30,  1636,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVI,  150). 


328         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

ernor  that  important  expeditions  were  undertaken  against  the 
Moros  in  the  South,  and  the  first  fort  and  settlement  were 
made  at  Zamboanga. 

It  is  to  be  especially  noted  that  in  the  appointment  of 
Olazo  and  Cerezo  in  1632  and  1633  respectively,  the  senior 
o-idor  was  deprived  of  the  control  of  military  affairs.  This  had 
been  done  also  in  1617  and  in  1624  when  Geroiiimo  de  Silva, 
governor  of  Ternate,  had  taken  charge  of  military  affairs  dur 
ing  vacancies  in  the  regular  governorship.  Temporary  ap 
pointments  had  been  made  on  two  different  occasions  by  the 
Marques  de  Cerralbo,  Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  once  in  the  send 
ing  of  Fernando  de  Silva  after  the  death  of  Governor  -Fajardo, 
and  on  this  occasion,  when  Cerezo  de  Salamanca  took  the  place 
of  Governor  Juan  Nino  de  Tavora,  after  the  audiencia  had 
governed  a  year.  Experience  had  shown  that  the  assumption 
of  the  military  command  by  the  senior  oiclor  was  not  produc 
tive  of  the  most  satisfactory  results.  It  was  not  to  be  ex 
pected,  of  course,  that  a  magistrate  would  administer  military 
affairs  with  the  skill  of  a  captain-general,  and  we  have  seen 
that  various  governors  recommended  that  the  practice  should 
no  longer  be  continued.  So  it  came  about  that  the  law  of  1608 
was  revived,  and  the  viceroy  appointed  a  temporary  governor 
to  assume  control  of  military  affairs,  the  audiencia  being  re 
stricted  to  judicial  and  administrative  functions.  In  1633,  on 
the  accession  of  Cerezo  de  Salamanca,  the  audiencia  was  de 
prived  of  the  right  of  intervention  in  the  last  mentioned 
activity,  and  was  confined  to  its  judicial  duties  alone.  This  was 
confirmed  by  the  cedilla-  of  January  30,  1635,  which  relieved  the 
Audiencia  of  Manila  of  all  jurisdiction  over  military  affairs 
during  vacancies,  ordering  that  they  were  to  be  administered 
by  a  temporary  appointee  of  the  viceroy.52 

Nevertheless,  considerable  opposition  to  this  method  of  fill- 


is  Ccdula  of  January  30,  1635,  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 


Criticisms  329 

Ing  vacancies  in  the  governorship  had  developed  within  the 
colony.  This  is  shown  in  various  protests  which  came  from  the 
Islands  from  time  to  time.  These  are  set  forth  with  great 
clarity  in  the  correspondence  of  the  governors.  Corcuera,  in 
a  letter  written  to  Philip  IV  on  June  30,  1636,  stated  that 
these  temporary  governors  had  allowed  persons  in  Mexico  to 
make  large  fortunes  out  of  the  Philippine  trade,  and  that  the 
governors  had  devoted  most  of  their  time  when  in  Manila  to 
serving  as  agents  of  the  residents  of  Mexico.  Corcuera,  how 
ever,  seemed  to  regard  the  audiencia  as  incapable  of  govern 
ment,  for  he  claimed  that  in  the  brief  term  of  a  year  in  which 
the  tribunal  had  ruled,  three  years  prior  to  his  accession,  it  had 
run  the  colony  into  debt  from  80,000  to  100,000  pesos.  He 
charged  the  oidores  with  the  same  dishonest  practice  as 
had  been  alleged  against  Governor  Fajardo,  namely,  that  they 
had  issued  duebills  in  payment  of  debts  and  had  bought  them 
up  later  at  less  than  their  face  value,  realizing  the  full  amount 
on  them  upon  their  presentation  to  the  treasury  later.  He 
stated  that  these  warrants  were  not  only  bought  by  the  oidores, 
but  by  practically  all  the  officials  of  the  government.  During 
Cerezo's  term  a  sum  in  excess  of  100,000  pesos  was  said  to 
have  been  paid  out  to  officials  as  usury.53 

Corcuera  presented  a  scheme  of  reform  designed  to  remedy 
the  evils  resulting  from  the  succession  either  of  the  audiencia 
or  of  an  irresponsible  military  commander  to  the  ad  interim 
governorship.  He  recommended  that  the  regularly  appointed 
governor  should  be  assisted  by  five  commissioners,  who  should 
be  military  men,  holding  the  respective  commands  of  Fort 
Santiago,  Cavite,  the  Port  of  Manila,  Formosa,  and  the  Parian. 
These  were  to  be  eligible  in  the  order  named  in  case  of  a 
vacancy.  This  plan,  like  so  many  of  the  schemes  of  the  soldier 
governors,  only  took  cognizance  of  the  military  side  of  the  gov- 


-^  Corcuera  to  Felipe  IV,  June  30,  1636.  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVI, 
150  ct  seq. 


330         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

ernor's  office.  The  marked  tendency  of  these  commanders  was 
to  continually  underestimate  the  administrative  and  political 
phases  of  their  positions.  The  plan  of  Corcuera  was  not 
adopted,  however,  and  the  viceroy  continued  to  appoint  tempo 
rary  governors  to  succeed  the  audiencia  when  it  assumed  the 
government  ad  interim. 

Governor  Diego  Fajardo,  on  July  10,-  1651,  wrote  a  letter  to 
the  king  protesting  against  the  policy  of  appointment  which 
was  then  in  force.  He  said : 

I  should  be  unfaithful  to  Your  Majesty  if  I  did  not  advise  you  of 
the  inconveniences  arising  from  the  appointment  of  governors  by  the 
Viceroy  of  New  Spain;  the  practice  of  sending  money  from  Mexico 
for  investment  in  this  colony  has  continued  and  increased,  to  the 
exclusion  and  deprivation  of  the  merchants  of  these  Islands.  .  .  . 

Investments  have  been  made  by  the  viceroys  through  the  agency  of 
others. 54 

Fajardo  urged  that  the  audiencia  should  be  permitted  to  re 
tain  the  government  as  it  had  done  formerly.  He  showed  the 
advantages  accruing  to  the  colony  from  a  continuity  of  policy 
which  would  result  from  the  rule  of  the  oidores.  He  showed 
that  the  incursions  of  the  viceroys  and  residents  of  Mexico 
upon  the  galleon  trade  would  more  likely  be  checked  by  the 
oidores  than  by  any  other  agency,  adding  moreover  that  this 
particular  matter  should  be  attended  to  at  once  since  the  life 
and  prosperity  of  the  colony  depended  on  the  control  of  the 
Acapulco  and  Chinese  commerce  by  the  merchants  of  Manila.55 
A  similar  argument  was  presented  by  Governor  Manrique  de 
Lara  in  a  letter  written  July  19,  1654.  This  governor  urged 
that  a  commission  of  magistrates,  familiar  with  the  needs  of 
the  colony  through  experience  and  long  residence,  was  better 
fitted  to  rule  for  the  common  good  than  a  stranger,  appointed 
by  a  distant  viceroy,  coming  to  the  Islands  as  most  of  the  tem 
porary  governors  had  done,  with  the  sole  purpose  of  ex 
ploitation.56 


s*  Fajardo  to  the  King,  July  10,  1651,  A.  I.,  67-6-9. 

ss Ibid. 

se  Governor  Lara  to  the  King,  July  19,  1654,  A.  I.,  67-6-9. 


The  Viceroy's  Intervention  331 

Probably  the  sentiments  of  the  residents  and  officials  of  the 
Philippines  were  best  and  most  effectively  expressed  on  this 
subject  in  the  letter  written  by  the  audiencia  to  the  king  on 
July  19,  1654.57  The  audiencia,  on  this  occasion,  described  the 
inconveniences  resulting  from  the  appointment  of  a  resident 
of  the  Islands  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain.  It  was  alleged 
that  these  appointees,  being  already  established  in  the  Islands 
as  merchants,  officials,  lawyers,  and  even  as  soldiers,  spent  all 
their  time  in  the  service  of  their  own  special  interests.  The 
commercial  abuses  of  these  appointees  were  said  to  be  notorious. 
The  presence  of  so  many  relatives,  friends,  and  business  con 
nections  made  it  impossible  for  these  temporary  rulers  to 
officiate  properly  as  presidents  of  the  audiencia,  or  to  admin 
ister  the  affairs  of  the  government  with  diligence  and  im 
partiality. 

As  a  result  of  the  general  dissatisfaction  in  the  colony, 
which  was  reflected  in  the  above  letters,  and  in  compliance 
with  the  repeated  requests  previously  made  for  reform,  the  law 
of  April  2,  1664,  was  proclaimed,  and  followed  by  the  consulta 
of  September  9,  1669,  which  has  been  already  referred  to. 
These  laws  still  recognized  the  right  of  the  Viceroy  of  New 
Spain  to  appoint  governors  temporarily,  but  these  were  no 
longer  to  be  designated  in  advance  from  the  residents  of  the 
Islands.  While  the  senior  magistrate  was  to  have  charge  of 
military  affairs,  he  was  to  seek  the  advice  of  such  military 
officials  as  were  stationed  in  the  colony,  "exercising  very  par 
ticular  care  and  vigilance  in  all  that  pertains  to  military 
affairs,  endeavoring  to  keep  the  presidios  well  stocked  and  pro 
vided  with  all  the  defenses  necessary  for  whatever  occasion 
may  arise."  This,  then,  was  a  return  to  the  practice  which 
had  prevailed  prior  to  September  13,  1608,  when  the  Viceroy  of 
New  Spain  was  first  authorized  to  appoint  a  temporary  gov- 


•5-  Ccdula  of  April  2,  1664,  with  tcstimonios  of  former  ct'dulas  and 
correspondence  on  succession,  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 


332         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

ernor  in  advance  of  the  death  of  the  incumbent.  Although 
the  audiencia  assumed  the  government  with  partial  legal  justi 
fication  from  1593  onward,  the  period  from  1664  to  1719  may 
rightly  be  said  to  constitute  the  era  of  the  audiencia  ?s  author 
ized  rule. 

An  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  the  new  law  occurred  in 
1668,  when  Governor  Diego  de  Salcedo  was  arrested  and  im 
prisoned  by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition.  In  accordance 
with  the  law  of  April  2,  1664,  just  referred  to,  the  audiencia 
was  entitled  to  assume  the  government  until  the  arrival  of 
the  provisional  governor  from  New  Spain.  A  dispute  arose 
between  the  two  most  eligible  oidores,  Francisco  de  Coloma  and 
Francisco  Moritemayor  y  Mansilla,  for  the  honors  of  the  mili 
tary  command.  Coloma  had  been  commissioned  as  magistrate 
of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  before  Montemayor,  who  main 
tained  his  claim  to  the  headship  of  military  affairs  on  the 
grounds  that  he  had  arrived  in  the  Philippines  earlier  than 
Coloma.58  These  two  officials  were  unable  to  agree  as  to  their 
respective  rights,  and  Juan  Manuel  de  la  Peria  Bonifaz,  junior 
magistrate  of  the  audiencia,  took  advantage  of  the  discord  to 
further  his  own  interests.  Put  forward  by  the  commissary  of  the 
Inquisition  and  by  the  ecclesiastical  element  of  the  colony  as  ar 
biter  in  the  contention  between  his  two  colleagues,  he  solidified  his 
own  power  until  he  was  able  to  usurp  the  entire  government.  He 
issued  orders  to  the  soldiers,  compromised  with  Coloma,  exiled 
Montemayor,  enacted  financial  and  governmental  measures,  ap 
pointed  his  friends  to  office,  and  in  general  acted  the  part  of  a 
dictator,  combining  in  his  own  person  all  the  functions  of  the 
military,  judicial  and  executive  departments.39  The  audiencia. 


58  These  two  magistrates  had  come  to  the  Islands  on  the  same  ship; 
Montemayor  had  disembarked  at  Cagayan  and  had  come  to  the  city  by 
land,  arriving  a  few  days  earlier  than  Coloma  (Montero  y  Vidal, 
Historic  general,  I,  336). 

so  Events  in  Filipinas,  1668,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXVII,  23-63; 
also  correspondence  of  Governor  Manuel  de  Leon,  and  consultas  of  the 


Restoration  to  Authority  333 

of  course,  was  entirely  suppressed.  Certain  ecclesiastical 
authorities  state  that  he  governed  with  greater  consideration 
and  fairness  than  many  of  his  predecessors,  and  that  his  rule 
was  more  just  than  that  of  the  audiencia  had  been.00  The 
spirit  of  his  administration  was  particularly  favorable  to  the 
churchmen,  by  whose  favor  he  gained  office,  and  by  whose  aid 
he  was  able  to  retain  his  position.  His  successor,  Manuel  dc 
Leon,  was  appointed  regular  governor  as  soon  as  news  of  the 
arrest  of  Salcedo  reached  Spain.  Bonifaz  was  apprehended  and 
sentenced  to  pay  the  customary  penalty  for  treason,  but  death 
intervened  and  defrauded  the  king's  justice.  It  may  be  con 
sidered,  in  a  sense,  that  Bonifaz  conferred  a  service  upon  the 
colony  by  forcibly  putting  an  end  to  the  disputes  which  had 
been  prevalent  between  the  rival  oidorcs  whose  claims  could 
not  have  been  settled  for  three  years  at  least — the  time  neces 
sary  for  the  Council  of  the  Indies  to  transmit  to  the  distant 
colony  a  ruling  on  the  points  at  issue. 

The  audiencia  next  took  over  the  government  in  April, 
1679,  on  the  death  of  Governor  Leon,  and  it  retained  control 
of  affairs  until  the  arrival  of  Governor  Juan  de  Vargas  Hur- 
tado  in  September,  1678.  The  rule  of  the  tribunal  on  this 
occasion  was  without  sensational  features.  Oidor  Francisco  de 
Coloma,  in  wrhose  favor  the  Council  of  the  Indies  had  declared 
in  the  dispute  described  above,  assumed  charge  of  military 
affairs,  serving  as  captain-general  until  his  death.  His  seniority 
was  acknowledged  by  Montemayor,  who  was  called  back  from 
exile  [0  a  place  in  the  audiencia.61 

The  inefficiency  of  the  audiencia  as  a  governing  agency  as 


Council  of  the  Indies  on  Salcedo  Affair,  1670-1673,  A.  I.,  67-6-9,  10,  11; 
67-6-3.  For  a  more  extended  account  of  this  episode,  see  Cunningham, 
"The  inquisition  in  the  Philippines;  the  Salcedo  affair,"  in  the  Catholic 
historical  review.  Ill,  417-445. 

«"  Augustinians  in  the  Philippines,  1641-70,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XXXVII,  273-275;  also  Consulta  of  Council  of  the  Indies,  July  16, 
1674,  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 

6i  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  354-361. 


334         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

shown  in  the  episode  just  described  was  surpassed  by  the  state 
of  utter  impotency  to  which  the  tribunal  was  reduced  during 
the  Pardo  controversy  in  1684.  Though  at  first  successful  in 
exiling  the  archbishop,  the  audiencia  and  Governor  Vargas 
were  later  completely  undone  by  the  intriguing  of  the  new  gov 
ernor,  Curuzaelegui,  with  the  prelate  to  discredit  the  previous 
administration.  The  struggle  ended  in  the  restoration  of  the 
prelate,  the  residencia  of  Vargas  and  the  appointment  of  a 
new  tribunal  which  was  calculated  to  be  more  subservient  to 
the  commands  of  the  new  governor  and  the  prelate.  This 
audiencia  assumed  the  government  after  the  death  of  Curuza 
elegui  on  April  17,  1689,  with  Alonzo  de  Avila  as  chief 
executive.62 

The  events  of  the  Pardo  controversy  prepared  the  way  for 
a  period  of  rule  by  an  audiencia  in  which  the  entire  govern 
ment  was  dominated  by  the  ecclesiastics.  Archbishop  Pardo 
and  his  successors  were  the  real  governors  and  the  victory  of 
the  church  over  the  various  officials  of  civil  administration 
lowered  the  moral  tone  of  the  entire  government.  Corruption 
flourished  and  the  vigor  of  the  administration  decayed.63  It  is 
clear  that  the  depravity  of  the  civil  government  proceeded 
largely  from  the  weakness  of  the  audiencia  and  its  submission 
to  the  governor.  The  latter  was  under  orders  from  no  less  an 
authority  than  the  king,  himself,  to  put  an  end  to  the  disputes 
between  church  and  state  in  the  colony  and  to  bring  about 
peace ;  it  also  happened  that  the  situation  in  the  colony  at  that 
time  caused  the  governor  to  lean  towards  the  side  of  Pardo  and 
his  supporters.  The  audiencia  was  entirely  disregarded  both 


«2  Ibid.,  I,  375.     See  Chapters  X  and  XI  of  this  book. 

63  There  is  no  question  of  the  harmful  effects  of  the  intervention  of 
the  church  in  the  government  on  this  occasion.  For  a  general  survey 
of  this  subject  throughout  the  history  of  the  Philippines,  see  the  au 
thor's  article  entitled  "The  ecclesiastical  influence  in  the  Philippines" 
(1565-1850)  in  The  American  journal  of  theology.  XXII,  161-186,  and 
Robertson,  "Catholicism  in  the  Philippine  Islands,"  in  The  Catholic 
historical  review,  III,  375-391. 


Unfitness  for  Rule  335 

by  Governor  Curuzaelegui  and  by  the  court,  which  may  be 
attributed  in  some  measure  to  that  policy  of  the  Spanish  gov 
ernment  previously  alluded  to — that  of  sacrificing  principle  in 
order  to  preserve  harmony.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the 
weakness  and  inefficiency  of  the  audiencia  during  these  two 
controversies  contributed  largely  to  the  subsequent  decision  of 
the  court  to  deprive  the  audiencia  of  the  right  of  governing 
ad  interim. 

The  last  occasion  on  which  the  audiencia  regularly  assumed 
the  government  of  the  Islands,  and  one  which  demonstrated 
still  more  conclusively  the  inefficiency  of  the  audiencia  as  gov 
ernor,  occurred  in  1715,  after  the  death  of  Governor  Lizarraga. 
His  rule  had  been  uncommonly  quiet  and  peaceful,  and  the 
period  of  extortion  and  strife  which  succeeded  it  furnished  a 
marked  contrast  to  that  governor's  administration.  The  audi 
encia  ruled  from  February  4,  1715,  to  August  9,  1717,  with 
Oidor  Jose  Torralba  as  senior  magistrate.  The  reports  sent  by 
Torralba  to  the  court  during  the  two  years  of  his  service  as 
military  commander  show  that  the  audiencia  as  a  body  played 
a  very  small  part  in  the  government.  This  was  again  the  rule 
of  a  dictator.  We  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter  that  Torralba 
was  held  accountable  in  his  residencia  for  a  deficit  of  700,000 
pesos  which  developed  during  this  period;64  it  is  difficult  to 


e*  See  Chapter  VIII,  note  16.  On  June  30,  1716,  Torralba  forwarded 
an  elaborate  memorial  to  the  king,  showing  that  the  finances  were 
in  an  excellent  state,  a  net  gain  of  38,554  pesos  having  accrued  to 
the  treasury  since  the  beginning  of  the  audiencia's  rule.  On  the  day 
that  this  report  was  filed  there  existed  in  the  treasury,  according  to 
Torralba's  figures,  a  favorable  balance  of  294,000  pesos.  This  report 
contains  the  following  interesting  data:  Income  from  the  subsidy, 
250,000  pesos;  betel  monopoly,  13,167  pesos;  tributes,  109,152  pesos; 
royal  auctions,  20,377  pesos;  mcclias  anatas,  16,373  pesos;  almojari- 
fazgo,  20,377  pesos;  wine  monopoly,  14,000  pesos  (Report  of  Torralba 
on  Financial  Affairs,  June  30,  1716,  A.  I.,  68-4-18).  In  a  letter  dated 
July  8,  1716,  Torralba  reported  his  compliance  with  the  cedula  of  Octo 
ber  10,  1713,  by  means  of  which  the  king  had  appealed  for  a  "free 
gift  or  contribution  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Islands  to 
•assist  in  putting  down  a  Catalonian  conspiracy."  Torralba  stated  that 
the  audiencia  had  seen  to  the  fulfillment  of  this  command  and  had 


336         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

understand  how  this  could  have  been  possible  had  the  senior 
magistrate  concerned  himself  solely  with  military  affairs. 
Concepeion  states  that  Torralba,  inflated  by  his  position,  and 
ambitious  of  getting  absolute  control  of  the  government,  drove 
from  office  the  oidorcs  who  dared  to  oppose  him.65  He  refused 
to  honor  the  royal  cedula  of  April  15,  1713,  which  ordered  the 
reinstatement  of  Oidor  Pavon  to  his  place  as  senior  oidor  since 
the  fulfillment  of  this  order  would  have  deprived  Torralba  of 
his  command. 

Torralba  reported  great  progress  in  the  repair  and  restora 
tion  of  royal  and  municipal  warehouses,  hospitals,  convents,  and 
churches  during  his  administration.  The  wall  of  Manila  \vas 
re-built  and  new  bronze  guns  were  cast  and  placed  thereon. 
As  acting  captain-general,  Torralba  inspected  Fort  Santiago, 
and,  "noting  grave  needs  both  in  construction  and  in  the 
morale  of  troops,"  made  the  necessary  repairs,  reforms  and  cor 
rections.66  He  concerned  himself  also  with  the  promotion  and 
appointment  of  military  officials.  These  latter 'acts  were  vigor 
ously  resisted  by  the  maestre  de  campo,  and  by  other  military 
officials,  as  encroachments  on  their  authority.  They  ultimately 
sought  to  bring  about  the  nullification  of  all  Torralba 's  ' '  unjusti 
fiable  acts  of  interference  within  the  military  sphere. '  '6T  "Whether 
animated  by  a  sincere  desire  to  see  the  natives  justly  treated, 
or  rather  by  his  natural  dislike  of  the  friars,  Torralba  inter 
vened  on  various  occasions  for  the  protection  of  the  Indians 
against  the  encroachments  and  abuses  of  the  churchmen  on  the 


collected  the  sum  of  7,042  pesos  (Torralba  to  King,  July  8,  1716,  A.  I., 
68-4-18). 

65  Concepcion,  Historia  general,  IX,  44,  et  seq.     Pavon,  it  will  be 
remembered,  had   been   removed   for  advising   Governor   Zabalburu   to 
receive  the  French  papal  delegate,  Touron.     In  1718  all  of  Torralba's 
acts  against   Touron   and  Villa  were  nullified   by  the   Council   of  the 
Indies,  and  those  officials  were  restored  to  office,  while  Torralba  was 
condemned  to  perpetual  exile  (A.  I.,  68-2-8). 

66  Torralba  to  the  King,  July  15,  1715,  A.  I.,  68-4-18;  another  report 
of  Torralba  on  the  same  subject,  dated   September  1,   1717,   exists  in 
A.  I.,  68-2-8. 

67  Royal  Fiscal  to  the  Council,  August  21,  1719,  A.  I.,  68-4-18. 


Unfit  ness  for  Rule  337 

encomiendas  and  in  the  native  towns.  These  acts  were  carried 
out  in  the  name  of  the  audiencia,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
law,  ultimately  meeting  with  the  approval  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies.68 

A  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction,  both  at  the  court  and  in  the 
colony,  had  resulted  from  the  audiencia 's  assumption  of  the 
government  at  various  times  since  1664.  We  have  already 
noted  that  the  restoration  of  this  authority  to  the  audiencia 
was  attended  by  the  disgraceful  quarrel  between  Coloma  and 
Montemayor  and  the  usurpation  of  Bonifaz  in  1668.  The 
Pardo  controversy  did  not  produce  a  favorable  impression  of 
the  activities  of  the  audiencia.  Torralba's  dictatorship  in  the 
name  of  the  audiencia  from  1715  to  1717,  conspicuous  for  the 
huge  deficit  in  which  it  culminated,  demonstrated  the  unfitness 
of  the  audiencia  to  be  entrusted  with  the  rule  of  the  Islands. 

Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  the  various  experiments  made 
by  the  monarchs  during  the  seventeenth  and  early  eighteenth 
centuries  for  the  purpose  of  perfecting  a  system  whereby  the 
governorship  could  be  satisfactorily  filled  ad  interim  had  failed 
to  demonstrate  or  develop  any  authority  capable  of  maintain 
ing  harmony  or  decent  government.  Co-operation  among  the 
authorities  of  the  colony  was  practically  unknown.  The  royal 
disapproval  was  passed  upon  practically  all  the  official  acts 
of  these  interim  administrations.  The  thirst  for  personal  glory, 
and  the  desire  for  private  gain  invariably  induced  some  official 
who  was  stronger  than  his  contemporaries  to  assume  control  of 
affairs ;  thus  the  government  of  the  colony  was  made  repeatedly 
to  subserve  personal  ends,  and  civil  and  political  life  was  char 
acterized  by  its  strife  and  discord.  The  probabilities  that  the 
temporary  administration  of  the  audiencia  would  not  be  entirely 
successful  had  been  recognized  from  the  beginning,  and  in  order 
to  guard  against  its  misrule  the  king  had  authorized  the  ap 


es  Torralba  to  the  King,   June  15,  1716    [with   approval  of  Council 
indicated  on  margin],  A.  I.,  68-4-18;   Recopilacion,  6-8,  6-9,  6-10. 


338        Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

pointment  of  a  temporary  governor  by  the  Viceroy  of  New 
Spain.  It  was  unavoidable,  however,  that  the  audiencia  should 
govern  until  the  arrival  of  this  official.  For  a  time  the  alterna 
tive  was  tried  of  allowing  the  maestre  de  campo  to  assume  the 
military  command,  but  this  resulted  in  such  an  incompetent  rule 
that  the  former  prerogatives  of  the  audiencia  were  restored. 
Whether  the  audiencia  was  capable  of  governing  successfully 
or  not,  it  certainly  had  the  power  to  make  or  mar  the  govern 
ment  of  any  other  person  or  authority,  whether  he  was  regu 
larly  appointed  by  the  king,  or  chosen  temporarily  by  the 
viceroy. 

The  church,  as  represented  by  a  succession  of  triumphant 
archbishops,  had  exercised  the  preponderance  of  power  and 
authority  throughout  the  forty  years  of  strife,  ending  with  the 
death  of  Governor  Bustamante.  We  need  not  be  concerned 
here  with  the  various  struggles  and  disagreements  with  gov 
ernors  and  audiencias,  but  the  fact  remains  that  the  church 
was  the  only  institution  existing  during  this  period  which  was 
able  to  present  a  solid  and  united  front  to  its  enemies,  or 
which  manifested  any  symptoms  of  power,  unity  or  royal  ap 
probation.  The  culmination  of  ecclesiastical  power  was  virtu 
ally  reached  on  October  11,  1719,  \vhen  Governor  Bustamante 
was  murdered  by  emissaries  of  the  church  and  Fray  Francisco 
de  la  Cuesta,  Archbishop  of  Manila,  assumed  the  vacant  gov 
ernorship. 

Zufiiga,  the  Dominican  historian,  says  that  the  archbishop 
declined  the  governorship  on  this  occasion,  but  was  sub 
sequently  prevailed  upon  to  accept  it.69  It  is  certain  that 
the  tribunal  was  in  no  state  or  condition  to  take  charge  of 
affairs;  its  administration  had  been  discredited  by  the  murder 
of  its  protector,  its  senior  magistrate  had  been  proved  an 
embezzler  in  his  residencies,  and  the  remaining  members  of  the 


69  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  historical  view,  II,  37-40. 


Substitution  of  Ecclesiastical  Rule  339 

tribunal  were  not  qualified  to  remain  in  office.  Oidores  Villa 
and  Pavon,  removed  by  Torralba  and  Bustamante,  were  re 
stored  by  the  archbishop,  and  were  content  to  recognize  him  as 
president  of  the  audiencia.  Each  of  them  had  his  owrn  claims 
to  the  position  of  acting-governor  and  had  Cuesta  not  occupied 
the  governorship  with  their  consent,  these  oidores  would  either 
have  been  languishing  in  banishment  as  punishment  for  having 
resisted  the  prelate,  or  they  would  have  been  struggling  for  the 
honors  of  a  position  occupied  by  a  pretended  mediator,  as  on 
former  occasions.  So  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  -best 
for  all  concerned  that  the  church  was  powerful  at  this  time ; 
the  colony  had  had  enough  of  strife  and  murder  and  there 
was  urgent  need  of  some  authority  with  sufficient  power  to 
bring  about  peace.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  audiencia 
renounced  its  claims  to  the  government,  and,  according  to 
Zuniga,  who  devotes  an  unusual  amount  of  space  to  this  im 
portant  epoch  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  Islands,  the 
people  were  very  content  with  the  archbishop's  rule  after  the 
injustice  and  oppression  of  Bustamante.70  It  may  be  noted 
that  the  archbishop  exercised  complete  authority  over  the  audi 
encia,  even  to  the  extent  of  restoring  oidores  who  had  been  un 
lawfully  dismissed,  and  of  acting  as  an  intermediary  between 
magistrates.  He  was  master  of  the  situation  and  his  interim 
rule  was  preferred  by  the  sovereign  and  by  the  people  to  that 
of  the  audiencia. 

The  royal  order  of  September  8,  1720,  legalizing  the  gov- 


70  Zuiiiga,  who  was  favorable  to  the  rule  of  the  churchmen,  writes: 
"There  never  appeared  less  confusion  at  an  insurrection  than  on  the 
present  occasion,  every  individual  seeming  satisfied  with  his  lot  in 
being  relieved  from  unjust  oppression  and  violence.  The  archbishop, 
who  had  assumed  the  reins  of  government,  was  the  only  person  whose 
mind  was  not  at  ease;  but  in  a  short  time  he  was  restored  to  tran 
quillity  by  the  arrival  of  a  royal  order,  enjoining  him  to  suspend  the 
Governor  from  his  office,  and  imprison  him;  replace  the  Royal  Audience 
on  the  same  footing  as  before;  set  at  liberty  Senor  Velasco  (an  oidor 
who  had  been  imprisoned  by  Torralba),  and  assume  the  reins  of  gov 
ernment  himself,  which  was  exactly  what  had  been  effected  by  the  late 
disturbance." — Martinez  de  Zuniga,  op.  cit.,  II,  39-40. 


340         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

eminent  of  the  prelates,  applied  not  only  to  the  administration 
of  Cuesta,  but  it  established  a  precedent  for  the  temporary 
rule  of  four  prelates.71  In  compliance  with  this  decree,  three 
sealed  envelopes  (pliegos  de  providencia)  were  sent  to  the 
audiencia  to  be  placed  unopened  in  the  archives  of  that 
tribunal,  and  the  seals  were  to  be  broken  only  on  the  death  of 
the  governor.  These  envelopes  were  accompanied  by  an  order 
from  the  king,  directing  that  the  person  mentioned  in  the  first 
envelope  should  be  recognized  as  temporary  governor.  In  case 
of  his  absence  or  incapacity  to  serve,  the  second  envelope  was 
to  be  opened  and  the  directions  contained  therein  were  to  be 
followed,  and  if  these  could  not  be  complied  with,  the  third 
envelope  was  to  be  opened. 

No  further  necessity  for  the  observance  of  this  law  of  suc 
cession  arose  until  after  the  death  of  Governor  Gaspar  de  la 
Torre,  when,  on  August  15,  1745,  the  first  envelope  was  opened 
in  the  presence  of  the  audiencia.  The  post  of  archbishop  being 
vacant  at  this  time  it  became  necessary  to  follow  the  directions 
prescribed  by  the  second  envelope.  It  was  found  that  Fray 
Juan  de  Arrechedera,  Bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia,  had  been 
designated  as  the  governor's  successor.  The  audiencia  relin 
quished  the  control  of  affairs  into  his  hands  and  he  governed 
for  a  period  of  five  years. 

It  would  seem  that  the  ecclesiastical  calling  of  this  governor 
in  no  way  incapacitated  or  hindered  him  in  the  execution  of  his 
duties.  His  administration  was  characterized  especially  by 


71  Royal  order  of  September  8,  1720,  A.  I.,  106-4-16.  Tcstimonio 
of  cedula  of  November  23,  1774,  A.  I.,  105-2-9.  Two  years  later, 
the  home  government  showed  its  disapprobation  of  the  rigorous 
acts  of  Cuesta  by  demoting  him  from  his  place  as  Archbishop  of  the 
Philippines  to  the  minor  post  of  Bishop  of  Mechoacan  in  Now  Spain 
(Montero  y  Vidal,  Historic,  general,  I,  432).  The  assumption  of  the 
government  by  Cuesta  invited  the  suspicion  that  he  had  been  a 
party  to  the  murder  of  the  governor.  Seven  archbishops  had  already 
ruled  on  various  occasions  in  New  Spain  (Bolton,  Guide,  469-470).  It 
is  surprising  that  such  an  attempt  to  solve  this  problem  was  not  made 
earlier  in  the  history  of  the  Philippines. 


Ecclesiastical  Government  341 

various  measures  taken  for  the  defense  and  fortification  of  the 
Islands.  He  suppressed  several  insurrections  in  Ilocos  and 
Cagayan,  dispatching  military  forces  under  the  command  of 
alcaldes  mayores  against  the  revolting  natives.  He  repelled 
several  Moro  raids  and  made  treaties  of  peace  with  the  Sultan 
of  Sulu.72  There  is  no  evidence  of  discord  between  the  gov 
ernor  and  the  audiencia  during  this  period.  Although  Arch 
bishop  Trinidad  arrived  and  took  possession  of  his  see  on 
August  27,  1747,  he  made  no  attempt  to  take  charge  of  politi 
cal  affairs.73  He  permitted  Arrechedera  to  continue  as  gov 
ernor  for  three  years,  handing  over  to  him 

a  royal  mandate,  for  the  absolute  expulsion  of  the  Chinese  [which  was 
never]  .  .  .  carried  into  execution,  the  interest  of  the  Governor  being 
too  deeply  involved  in  the  suspension  of  it,  the  Chinese  paying  him  a 
contribution  for  his  forbearance.  The  Archbishop  found  that  Arreche 
dera  was  strongly  attached  to  this  nation,  and  he  became  so  far  a  con 
vert  to  his  sentiments  on  this  subject  that  he  did  not  put  the  royal 
order  in  force.  .  .  .  This  seems  to  have  been  the  only  error  committed 
by  this  illustrious  prelate  during  the  time  he  held  the  government.  In 
all  other  respects  his  conduct  reflected  the  highest  honour  on  him."* 

The  third  time  the  government  was  taken  over  by  a  prelate 
was  in  1759  on  the  death  of  Governor  Arandia.  On  this  occa 
sion  it  became  necessary  to  open  the  third  pliego  de  prom- 
d<ncia.  The  metropolitan  see  of  Manila  and  the  diocese  of 
Nueva  Segovia  being  vacant,  Bishop  Espeleta  of  Cebu  was  the 
senior  prelate  of  the  Islands.  Shortly  after  the  accession  of 
Espeleta,  Manuel  Rojo,  the  new  archbishop,  arrived,  command 
ing  Espeleta  to  vacate  the  governorship  at  once.  Rojo  refused, 


'-  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  op.  fit.,  II,  84-95;  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia 
general.  I,  480-495. 

"3  Martinez  de  Ziiniga  says  he  carried  a  special  government  commis 
sion  as  governor  ad  interim,  and  his  refusal  to  accept  the  office  was 
later  used  as  a  precedent  by  Bishop  Espeleta  in  his  refusal  to  turn  over 
the  governorship  to  Archbishop  Rojo  (Ziiniga,  An  historical  view,  II, 
89).  Evidently  he  had  all  the  qualifications  necessary  to  fill  the  office 
of  governor,  for  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Audiencia  of  Quito  for 
seventeen  years,  and  had  been  also  a  member  of  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XLVIII,  145-146). 

"i  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  historical  view,  II,  89-90. 


342        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

citing  the  precedent  established  by  Bishop  Arrechedera.  Es- 
peleta  appealed  to  the  audiencia  for  support,  but  the  oidorcs 
were  unable  to  agree  on  the  question,  two  of  them,  Calderon 
and  Galban  supporting  Eojo,  and  the  other  two  remaining  in 
favor  of  the  retention  of  the  governorship  by  Espeleta.  The 
question  was  left  to  the  fiscal,  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  who 
advised  that  the  matter  should  be  carried  to  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  for  final  settlement.75  It  transpired,  therefore,  that  Es 
peleta  retained  the  governorship  from  1759  until  1761,  and  he 
did  very  effective  work  in  repelling  the  raids  of  the  Moros,  who 
had  been  ravaging  the  provinces  with  impunity  for  some  time. 
The  prosecution  of  Dr.  Santiago  Orendam  occupied  a 
large  share  of  Espeleta 's  attention  during  his  administra 
tion.  This  controversy  should  be  noted  here  because  it  illus 
trates  the  relations  between  the  audiencia  and  an  ecclesiastical 
governor.  Orendain  had  been  the  advisor  (asesor)  of  Governor 
Arandia,  and  was  held  responsible  for  the  repressive  measures 
taken  against  the  church  during  the  administration  of  the  latter. 
The  rule  of  an  unscrupulous  prelate  presented  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  revenge  and  Orendain 's  prosecution  was  unani 
mously  demanded  by  the  ecclesiastical  element  of  the  colony. 
The  magistrates  also  welcomed  the  opportunity  to  retaliate 
upon  a  hitherto  successful,  but  unpopular,  rival.  The  fiscal 
brought  action  against  Orendain,  who  sought  refuge  in  an 
Augustinian  convent,  whereupon  the  civil  authorities  forced 
an  entrance  into  the  asylum,  seizing  Orendain  and  imprisoning 
him  in  Fort  Santiago.  The  provisor  of  the  ecclesiastical  court 
excommunicated  Magistrate  Villacorta,  who  had  exculpated 
Orendain  in  his  trial,  but  the  ban  was  disregarded  by  the 
audiencia.  A  division  over  the  question  arose  in  the  tribunal, 


75  Opinion  of  Pedro  Calderon  Enriquez,  July  26,  1759,  Opinion 
of  Francisco  Leandro  Viana,  July  31,  1759,  Autos  of  Appeal,  August  3, 
1759,  A.  I.,  106-4-16.  Montero  y  Vidal  (Historia  general,  II,  8)  states 
that  Espeleta  used  intimidation  to  secure  the  office. 


The  Rule  of  Rojo  343 

and  matters  were  assuming  a  threatening  aspect,  when  the 
authorized  appointment  of  Governor  Rojo  arrived.  Espeleta 
gave  up  his  office,  and  the  first  act  of  the  new  governor 
was  to  restore  Orendain  to  full  favor  as  his  counsellor. 
The  affair  of  Dr.  Orendain  illustrates  a  phase  of  Spanish  colon 
ial  administration  which  is  too  characteristic  to  be  left  un 
noticed  here.  Aside  from  the  influence  which  Orendain  exercised 
over  Governor  Arandia,  his  persecution  shows  the  measure  of  per 
sonal  rancour  which  even  a  prelate  might  put  into  his  admin 
istration,  spending  practically  two  years  in  the  pursuit  of 
revenge.  In  this  he  was  supported  by  the  audiencia.  In  this 
affair  neither  the  church  nor  the  audiencia  were  animated  so 
much  by  motives  of  right  and  justice  as  they  were  influenced 
by  personal  feelings. 

The  rule  of  Archbishop  Rojo  from  1761  to  1764  was  a 
notable  one  in  the  history  of  the  Philippines.  The  principal 
event  during  his  administration  was  the  capture  of  Manila  by 
the  British.  This  furnished  the  occasion  for  the  resistance  of 
Oidor  Simon  de  Anda  y  Salazar,  in  the  name  of  the  audiencia, 
both  to  the  English  and  to  the  archbishop  who  had  ordered  his 
surrender.  These  events  show  the  complete  incapacity  of  an 
ecclesiastical  governor  of  Rojo's  type  and  personality  to  fulfill 
the  military  requirements  of  his  position.  In  the  operations  of 
Anda  we  note  how  a  man  of  decisive  action,  energy,  courage, 
and  loyalty  was  able  to  force  the  issue  and  deprive  the  arch 
bishop-governor  of  the  executive  functions  which  he  had 
assumed  legally,  but  which  he  was  unable  to  dispense.  This 
episode  illustrates,  furthermore,  the  general  disregard  of  the 
laws  which  placed  the  governorship  in  the  hands  of  a  man  who 
was  unfit  for  its  exercise,  showing  again  that  in  the  selection 
of  a  person  to  carry  out  the  duties  of  governor  the  military 
side  of  the  situation  could  not  be  disregarded. 

Anda,  at  the  time  of  the  accession  of  Rojo,  was  a  junior 
magistrate  in  the  audiencia,  having  arrived  in  Manila  on  July 


344        Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

21,  1761. 7G  The  British  squadron  entered  Manila  Bay  on  Sep 
tember  22,  1762.  The  British  subsequently  attacked  the  city, 
the  fall  of  which  seemed  imminent  on  account  of  th«  neglectful 
state  into  which  the  defense  had  fallen."  The  proposition  was 
made  to  the  archbishop-governor  by  Fiscal  Francisco  Leandro 
de  Viana  and  the  audiencia  that  Oidor  Anda  should  be  dis 
patched  to  the  provinces  with  the  title  of  Governor  and  Captain- 
general  of  the  Islands  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and  de 
fending  them  under  the  sovereignty  of  the  Spanish  monarch,78 
and  "in  order  that  he  might  keep  the  natives  quiet  in  their 
Christian  instruction  and  in  their  obedience  to  the  king."79 
The  archbishop  refused  to  accede  to  this  proposition  on  the 
grounds  that  "neither  he  nor  the  Audiencia  had  any  authority 
to  create  a  governor  and  captain-general,  which  was  the  proper 
privilege  of  his  Majesty;  and  that  it  was  enough  to  give  him 
the  title  of  visitor  of  the  land  .  .  .  and  ...  of  lieutenant 
of  the  captain-general/'80  This  was  done,  therefore,  and  Anda 
left  on  the  night  of  October  3,  1762,  with  these  titles  and 
powers. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  Anda  was  not  given  the  title  of 
governor  and  captain-general,  but  that  as  oidor  he  was  com 
missioned  visitador  de  tierras  and  tenien-te  de  gobernador  y 
capita n  general.81  The  authority  to  designate  oidor es  as  visit 
ors  of  the  provinces  was  a  function  regularly  exercised  by  the 
president  of  the  audiencia  and  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the 
Indies.82  It  appears  from  the  above  that  Anda  was  sent  to  the 


7«  Anda  was  sixty-two  years  of  age  when  he  left  Manila  to  under 
take  the  defense  of  the  provinces  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  211). 

77  Relation  dc  la  conquista  de  Manila  por  los  Ingleses  y  pr-esa  del 
galeon  de  Santisima  Trinidad  en  el  mes  de  Octubre  de  1762,  A.  I., 
107-1-15. 

-s  Manifiesto  of  Viana,  March  8,  1762,  A.  I.,  107-3-2. 

'•>  Rojo's  Narrative,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  210. 

so  lUd.,  210-211. 

si  Testimonio  del  Sccretario  dc  Cdmara,  13  de  Xoviembre.  1762,  A.  I., 
107-3-2. 

s-'  Rccopilacion,  2-31-1  to  14. 


The  British  Conquest  of  Manila  345 

provinces  to  defend  them  against  the  English.  This  was  the 
main  object  as  stated  in  the  original  proposition  of  the  audi- 
encia.  Zuriiga  states  the  purpose  of  the  departure  of  Anda  to 
have  been  "to  maintain  the  islands  in  obedience  to  the  King  of 
Spain/'83  and  this  is  corroborated  by  the  testimonies  of  Anda,84 
Viana83  and  of  Rojo,86  himself.  In  view  of  these  facts,  Rojo's 
failure  to  co-operate  with  Anda,  his  proneness  to  listen  to  those 
who  counseled  surrender,  his  complete  reversal  of  tactics  in 
repeatedly  summoning  Anda  to  abdicate,  and  his  willingness 
even  to  betray  Anda  into  the  hands  of  the  British  are  almost 
inexplicable.87 


*s  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  historical  view.  II,  180. 
54  Tcstimonio  del  Secretario  dc  Camara    (authorized  and  sworn  to 
lay  Anda),  13  de  Noviembre,  1762,  A.  I.,  107-3-2. 

«  Tcstimonio  del  fiscal,  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  8  dc  Marzo, 
1763,  A.  I.,  107-3-2. 

^'>  Rojo's  Narrative,  op.  cit.,  Testimonio  de  D.  Antonio  Diaz,  (ayu- 
dante  dc  Rojo)  .  .  .  28  de  Noviembre  de  1762,  A.  I.,  107-3-4. 

s"  Montero  y  Vidal  (Historia  general,  II,  67;  see,  also,  note  114, 
Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  176)  summarizes  the  life  and  character  of 
Archbishop  Rojo  as  follows:  "This  prelate  was  more  imbecile  than 
traitor.  .  .  .  His  obstinacy  in  submitting  the  Islands  to  the  do 
minion  of  the  English;  his  struggles  against  Anda  .  .  .  his  absolute 
ignorance  of  his  powers  .  .  .  his  pardonable  ignorance  of  whatever 
concerned  the  military  defense  of  the  archipelago,  his  calm  submission 
to  whatever  the  English  advised,  even  in  matters  clearly  opposed  to 
the  integrity  and  interests  of  Spain  .  .  .  give  an  exact  idea  of  the 
capacity  and  character  of  the  unfortunate  one  who  had  the  misfortune 
in  such  an  anxious  time  to  exercise  a  command  for  which  he  was 
lacking  in  intelligence,  valor  and  in  all  other  attributes  necessary  to 
its  successful  accomplishment." 

Le  Gentil  (Voyage,  II,  252)  characterizes  him  as  follows:  "Arch 
bishop  Rojo  was  a  capable  man  for  the  management  of  finances;  he 
was  clever  in  business  and  very  zealous  for  the  service  of  the  king; 
but  he  did  not  understand  anything  of  military  affairs;  ...  he  was 
between  two  fires,  and  being  of  an  irresolute  disposition,  he  did  not 
know  which  way  to  turn,  .  .  .  besieged  on  one  side  by  oidores,  on  the 
other  side  by  monks,  he  would  not  (otherwise)  have  waited  till  the 
English  were  on  the  assault." 

Charges  of  indecent  living  and  riotous  conduct  were  made  by  Anda 
in  his  various  letters  to  the  Archbishop.  While  the  English  were  at 
the  gates  of  the  city,  the  prelate  was  passing  his  hours  with  indecent 
women.  Anda  stated  that  Rojo  alternated  between  the  dance-hall  and 
the  pulpit,  leaving  to  others  the  question  of  defense.  Anda  stated  that 
Rojo  had  allowed  himself  to  be  influenced  by  the  traitorous  Santiago 


346        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

Anda  organized  a  provisional  government  in  his  capacity  as 
lieutenant-governor.  He  disregarded  the  repeated  summons  of 
the  archbishop  to  return  to  the  city  and  surrender  to  the 
British.  In  a  letter  to  the  archbishop,  dated  October  21,  1762, 
Anda  justified  his  position  and  made  clear  that  he  was  not 
acting  on  the  basis  of  any  delegation  of  power  as  captain-gen 
eral,  which  authority,  he  acknowledged,  still  rested  with  Rojo. 
He  stated  that  he  had  been  appointed  visitor-general  of  the 
provinces  "with  the  real  mission  of  protecting  them  if  the 
English  captured  Manila ; "  in  case  this  happened  he  was  to 
solicit  the  aid  of  prelates,  religious  and  alcaldes  mayorcs  in 
defending  the  Islands.  He  complained  that  Rojo  had  already 
"endeavored  to  influence  the  prelates,  religious  and  natives  to 
submit  to  the  British."8  He  urged  that  Rojo  should  desist 
from  his  opposition  to  his  efforts,  pointing  out  the  great  de 
sirability  of  their  co-operation. 

When  Anda  became  convinced  of  the  infirmity  of  Rojo  and 
the  uselessness  of  further  attempts  at  co-operation  with  him  he 
completely  changed  his  attitude  towards  his  own  position  and 
towards  the  question  of  the  defense  and  government  of  the 
Islands.  While  he  had  hitherto  recognized  Rojo  as  governor 
and  captain-general,  he  now  assumed  the  position  that  the 
archbishop  was  a  prisoner  in  the  city  and  he  therefore  refused 


de  Orendafn,  refusing  to  listen  to  the  more  loyal  counsel  of  the  king's 
ministers  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  132-160). 

Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  the  -fiscal,  believed  that  the  archbishop 
neither  wished  to  be  a  traitor  to  the  king  nor  to  his  country,  but  he  as 
serted  that  he  (Viana)  was  the  only  person  in  the  colony  who  was  so 
charitable  in  his  opinion.  He  felt  that  Rojo's  stand  was  a  result  of 
his  incapacity,  timorousness,  irresolution  and  ignorance.  Viana,  like 
Anda,  commented  on  the  archbishop's  lasciviousness  and  immorality 
(Viana  to  Rojo,  March  1,  1763,  A.  I.,  107-3-2). 

Zuniga,  the  ecclesiastical  historian,  seeing  through  priestly  eyes, 
affirmed  that  Rojo  was  guilty  of  only  one  error  during  his  rule.  This 
was  his  engagement  to  pay  four  millions  of  pesos  to  the  English  and  to 
deliver  up  the  Islands  to  them  (Martinez  de  Zuniga,  An  historical  view. 
II,  239). 

ss  Anda  to  Rojo,  October  20,  1762,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  153- 
154. 


The  Government  of  An  da  347 

to  recognize  the  orders  of  the  latter.  Anda  issued  a  call  to  all 
loyal  inhabitants  to  defend  the  honor  of  Spain.  He  ordered  the 
alcaldes  may  ores  to  pay  no  heed  to  the  dispatches  and  com 
mands  issued  by  the  archbishop  or  the  British  in  the  city.  He 
set  himself  up  as  governor  and  captain-general  of  the  Islands, 
subsequently  moving  his  capital  to  Bacolor,  Pampanga.  He 
obtained  possession  of  the  funds  of  the  royal  treasury,  which 
had  been  sent  to  the  province  of  Laguna  when  the  English  had 
appeared,  and  he  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  demands  of  the  arch 
bishop  that  the  money  should  be  returned  to  the  city  in  order 
that  it  might  be  applied  on  the  payment  of  the  four  million- 
peso  war  indemnity  imposed  by  the  victorious  British.  Anda 
enlisted  a  military  force  aggregating  eight  thousand  men,  and 
he  successfully  prevented  the  enemy  from  doing  more  than 
capture  Cavite,  Pasig,  and  a  few  other  places  of  .minor  im 
portance.  Notwithstanding  the  demands  of  the  British,  who 
had  placed  a  price  of  four  thousand  pesos  on  his  head,  and 
the  entreaties  of  the  archbishop,  Anda  resisted  until  he  was 
assured  that  peace  was  definitely  arranged  between  Spain  and 
Great  Britain.89 

The  justification  which  Anda  offered  for  his  conduct  was  as 
follows:  the  regular  governor  and  the  audiencia  (excepting 
himself)  were  prisoners  in  the  city  of  Manila ;  their  positions 
and  places  \vere  therefore  vacant,  and  Anda,  as  the  sole  oidor 
who  was  not  incapacitated,  should  accordingly  succeed  and  had 
succeeded  to  the  management  of  political  affairs  and  defense. 
He  was  both  audiencia  and  governor.  In  support  of  his  con 
tention  that  he  himself  was  the  legally  constituted  audiencia, 
he  cited  the  law  promulgated  by  Philip  III  on  August  14,  1620, 
declaring  that  "in  some  of  the  audiencias  of  the  Indies  it  has 


so  When  news  of  the  temporary  suspension  of  hostilities  reached 
him  in  July,  1763,  Anda  refused  to  place  confidence  in  the  assurances 
either  of  the  British  or  of  the  archbishop.  He  held  out  until  the  ar 
rival  of  the  new  governor,  Francisco  Xavier  de  la  Torre.  See  Anda  to 
Rojo,  July  29,  1763,  A.  I.,  107-3-4. 


348         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

happened,  and  it  might  happen  still  that  the  old  ores  being  ab 
sent  and  .  .  .  only  one  remaining,  ...  in  such  cases  the 
audiencia  is  to  be  conserved  and  continued  with  only  one  oidor."Q(i 
Anda  had  been  a  legally  appointed  oidor  on  special  delegation 
to  the  provinces  when  the  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  British ; 
the  governor  and  the  remaining  o-idores  had  become  prisoners 
and  were  civilly  dead;  being  the  only  magistrate  of  the  audi 
encia  yet  on  duty,  he  was  at  once  audiencia  and  governor.  He 
stated  that  he  would  surrender  his  office  to  the  archbishop  and 
audiencia  when  both  had  regained  their  liberty,  but  he  warned 
the  archbishop  that  if  he  went  to  the  extreme  of  surrendering 
the  Islands,  he  (Anda)  "would  in  no  wise  obey  so  unjust  and 
absurd  a  treaty,"  and  furthermore  stated  that  if  the  British 
wished  to  rule  the  country,  they  would  have  to  conquer  it 
first.  He  expressed  the  conviction  that  neither  the  archbishop 
nor  any  other  authority  except  the  king  had  the  power  to  sur 
render  the  Islands.91  In  these  arguments  and  sentiments  Anda 
was  supported  by  the  fiscal,  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  and  by 
Oidores  Galban  and  Villacorta,  who  subsequently  escaped  from 
the  city  and  joined  him  in  the  provinces,  aiding  him  in  his  re 
sistance  to  the  invaders. 

Although  the  British  had  agreed  in  their  terms  of  capitu 
lation  that  the  audiencia  should  continue  in  the  exercise  of  its 
normal  powers  in  Manila,02  that  tribunal  and  the  archbishop 


90  Rccopilacion,   2-15-180. 

91  Anda  to  Rojo,  October  30,  1762    (with  testimonies  of  witnesses), 
A.  I.,  107-3-3;  Reoopilacion,  2-15-57  and  58.    On  October  20,  1762,  Anda 
wrote  as  follows:     "I  said  and  I  repeat  that  the  presidency  and  gov 
ernment  fell  to  the  royal  Audiencia;  and  I  add  that  the  latter  is  con 
served  and  continued  in  me,  that  I  am  the  sole  and  only  minister,  that 
by  my  absence  from  that  capital  because  of  the  commissions  confided 
to  me  at  a  convenient  time,  I  remained  free  from  the  enemies   ...   so 
that  in  my  person  is  met  the  prescriptions  of  law  clxxx  of  the  above- 
cited  book  and  titulo,  since  my  associates  are  lacking  and  have  been 
imprisoned   with   your  Excellency    in   the   fatal   loss   of   that   capital." 
(Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  136). 

92  Relation  de  la  conquista  de  Manila   por  los  Inglcses,  .  .  .  1761- 
1764,  A.  I.,  107-1-15. 


349" 

were  virtually  prisoners;  the  idea  of  their  recognition  there 
fore  appears  almost  an  absurdity.  The  aidores  acted  as  mem 
bers  of  the  council  of  war  which  considered  the  proposition 
made  by  the  British  for  the  surrender  of  the  city,  but  if  we  may 
trust  the  testimony  of  Viana,  the  archbishop,  influenced  by  his 
favorites,  Monroy  and  Orendain,  forced  the  magistrates  to  sign 
the  articles  of  capitulation.  Viana  says  that  in  the  various 
matters  which  came  up  for  solution  after  the  city  had  surren 
dered,  the  oidores  were  formally  consulted,  but  the  archbishop 
followed  his  own  counsel,  or  that  of  his  favorites.93 

The  position  of  Rojo  after  the  escape  of  the  fiscal  and  the 
oidores  was  an  exceedingly  unpleasant  one.  The  English  com 
mander  complained  that  the  prelate  and  the  audiencia  had 
failed  to  keep  the  agreement  which  had  been  made  between 
them ;  in  escaping,  the  fiscal  and  the  oidores  had  violated  their 
oaths;  the  indemnity  had  not  been  paid;  the  provinces  had  not 
surrendered  and  Anda  was  still  continuing  his  resistance.  The 
sack  of  the  city  was  threatened.  These  conditions  made  Rojo 
redouble  his  efforts  to  betray  Anda  and  to  get  possession  of  the 
treasure  which  had  come  on  the  patachc,  "Filipino".  The 
British  offered  remission  of  tribute  to  all  natives  then  in  insur 
rection  who  would  surrender.  Anda  was  charged  with  respon 
sibility  for  the  danger  with  which  the  city  was  threatened. 
He  was  said  to  have  prevented  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty 
between  Rojo  and  the  British.  To  this  Anda  replied  that  he 
had  not  been  a  party  to  the  treaty.  The  state  of  perpetual 
worry  in  which  Rojo  was  kept  brought  about  his  death  on 
January  30,  1764.  Even  before  this  he  had  practically  lost  his 
status  as  governor  and  the  British  were  treating  with  Anda  for 
the  surrender  of  the  Islands.94  This  continued  until  the  legiti- 


93  Memorial  of  Viana,  March  8,  1763,  A.  I.,  107-3-2. 

94  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  172-175. 


350        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

macy  of  the  position  of  Anda  was  recognized  by  Governor 
Torre.95 

A  statement  of  the  above  facts  aids  in  clarifying  our  view 
of  Anda's  position.  It  certainly  can  be  said  that  there  was 
neither  an  audiencia  nor  a  governor  with  sovereign  powers  in 
Manila;  this  lack  furnished  a  reasonable  basis  for  Anda's 
claims.  However  clearly  it  was  established  that  a  vacancy 
existed  in  the  governorship,  his  position  would  have  been  suf 
ficiently  tenable  had  it  been  based  solely  on  the  grounds  that 
the  archbishop  had  delegated  him  as  lieutenant  of  the  captain- 
general,  with  military  powers.  The  archbishop-governor  had 
granted  him  that  title  and  those  powers  for  the  very  purpose 
for  which  he  had  utilized  them,  namely,  for  the  defense  of  the 
Islands  against  the  British.  In  view  of  the  support  which  was 
extended  to  Anda  in  his  contention  that  he  was  governor  and 
captain-general  as  long  as  the  archbishop  arid  the  regularly 
constituted  audiencia  were  prisoners,  it  is  not  easy  to  under 
stand  why  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  justif}^  himself  by  ad 
vancing  the  claim,  first,  that  he  was  the  audiencia,  and,  second, 
that  he  was  the  governor  because  he  had  the  authority  of  the 
audiencia.  The  only  accountable  reason  for  this  was  probably 
the  necessity  of  nullifying  the  commands  of  the  archbishop 
which  were  being  issued  from  the  captured  city.  He  may  have 
felt  that  such  measures  were  imperative  in  order  to  gain  and 
retain  the  respect  of  the  natives  and  provincial  officials  who 
were  not  under  his  immediate  influence  and  who  were  conse 
quently  more  independent  and  inclined  to  be  insurrectionary 
and  riotous.  Yet,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  the  legal  argu 
ments  advanced  in  support  of  his  claims  were  understood  by 
this  class. 

It  does  not  appear,  moreover,  that  Anda  was  entirely  justi 
fied  in  his  argument  by  the  laws.  No  doubt  he  was  right  in 


os  Report  of  Governor  Francisco  Xavier  de  la  Torre  on  the  Negotia 
tions  for  the  Evacuation  of  the  City  of  Manila,  1764,  A.  I.,  107-1-15. 


The  Government  of  Anda  351 

regarding  himself  as  the  audiencia,  on  the  basis  of  the  laws 
cited  by  him.  However,  the  law  did  not  at  that  time  authorize 
the  succession  of  the  audiencia  to  a  vacancy  in  the  governorship. 
The  cedillas  of  September  8,  1720,  and  of  August  15,  1731, 
were  still  in  force  in  the  Philippines,  and  by  virtue  of  these 
and  by  the  special  cedilla  promulgated  in  1761  in  favor  of 
Rojo,  an  ecclesiastic  was  authorized  to  act  as  governor  in  case 
of  a  vacancy.  According  to  law  and  precedent,  the  post 
vacated  by  the  archbishop-governor  should  have  been  filled  by 
the  bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia,  and  by  the  bishop  of  Cebu,  re 
spectively.  It  is  true  that  neither  of  these  ecclesiastics  put 
forth  any  effort  to  maintain  their  legal  rights,  probably  for 
the  reason  that  they  realized  their  incapacity  to  organize  and 
conduct  the  defense  of  the  Islands  as  well  as  Anda  had  done. 
The  audiencia  had  not  succeeded  to  the  government  since  1715 ; 
it  had  been  forbidden  to  do  so  in  1720  and  subsequently.  It  is 
therefore  difficult  to  understand  how  Anda  could  have  seriously 
advanced  the  claim  that  in  his  capacity  as  sole  oidor  he  should 
succeed  to  the  government. 

Aside  from  the  opposition  of  the  archbishop,  there  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  any  great  difference  of  opinion  on  the  ques 
tion  of  whether  Anda  could  rightfully  claim  the  prerogatives 
of  the  audiencia  and  governorship  at  the  same  time.  Rojo  paid 
no  attention  to  the  legal  arguments  advanced  by  Anda,  but 
contended  that  both  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  were  still 
in  full  possession  of  their  powers  and  in  complete  enjoyment 
of  their  liberties  within  the  city.  No  comment  is  to  be  found 
on  Anda's  contention  in  the  royal  dispatches  which  were  sent 
in  answer  to  his  reports.  It  is  important  to  note,  however, 
that  after  the  death  of  the  archbishop,  and  after  the  restora 
tion  of  peace,  the  fiscal  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  govern 
ment  should  go  to  Fray  Ustariz,  bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia.96 
In  this  opinion  he  was  seconded  by  Oidor  Galban. 


Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  An  historical  view,  II,  234. 


352         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

It  would  seem  that  Anda  was  supported  in  his  resistance 
to  Archbishop  Rojo  and  the  British  largely  on  grounds  of  ex 
pediency.  This  is  clearly  brought  out  in  a  letter  which  Fiscal 
Viana  wrote  to  the  king  on  October  30,  1762,  stating  his  opin 
ion  that : . 

Since  the  Audiencia  and  governor  are  unable  to  exercise  their  duties, 
Anda,  as  the  only  active  and  unembarrassed  minister  who  is  able  to 
retain  his  place  under  the  authority  of  Your  Majesty,  has  declared  him 
self  'governor,  royal  audiencia  and  captain-general.  It  is  evident  that, 
being  a  prisoner,  the  archbishop  cannot  be  governor  and  captain- 
general,  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  government  and  office  of 
captain-general  falls  back  on  the  audiencia  and  the  oldest  oidor.''' 

This  argument  savors  of  expediency  and  sound  practicability 
rather  than  of  interest  in  the  legal  quibble.  Had  Viana  been 
convinced  of  the  legality  of  Anda's  claims  he  would  not  subse 
quently  have  supported  Ustariz.  Viana  contended  that  neither 
the  archbishop  nor  the  audiencia  enjoyed  sovereign  powers 
when  they  were  prisoners.  Anda,  on  the  other  hand,  was  in 
such  a  position  that  he  could  utilize  his  legal  powers;  he  used 
them  to  good  advantage  and  effectively,  therefore  he  was 
entitled  to  recognition. 

Aside  from  the  question  of  legality,  it  is  important  to  note 
that  Anda  was  the  only  person  who  was  able  to  exercise  sov 
ereign  powers  during  this  time.  It  is  certain,  moreover,  that 
he  prevented  the  Islands  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  the 
British  and  that  he  maintained  the  continuity  of  the  sov 
ereignty  of  Spain  in  the  Islands  from  1762  to  1764.  During 
his  rule  in  the  provinces  he  exercised  practically  all  the 
functions  of  a  normal  government.  Aside  from  the  manage 
ment  of  military  affairs  he  administered  the  finances  and 
,  levied  tribute.  As  noted  above,  he  contrived  to  obtain  posses 
sion  of  the  royal  treasure  which  had  been  sent  to  Laguna ;  he 
was  consequently  better  equipped  financially  than  he  would 
have  been  otherwise,  and  better  than  his  rivals  in  the  city.  His 


Viana  to  the  King,  October  30,  1762,  A.  I.,  107-3-2. 


The  Government  of  Anda  353 

finances  were  also  augmented  by  the  favorable  circumstance  of 
his  capture  of  the  "Filipino"  which  was  returning  from 
Acapulco  with  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  her  former  cargo.08 
Other  functions  of  a  semi-military  and  governmental  char 
acter  were  exercised  by  Anda  in  his  capacity  as  acting  gov 
ernor.  In  some  of  these  matters  he  was  assisted  by  the  -fiscal 
and  audiencia  in  the  latter  part  of  his  administration.  He 
regulated  the  prices  of  provisions  in  order  to  prevent  them 
from  attaining  prohibitive  proportions.  He  did  all  that  he 
could  to  further  and  encourage  interprovincial  trade.  He 
issued  orders  in  regulation  of  wages.  In  order  to  discourage 
drunkenness  he  forbade  the  sale  of  nipa  wine  except  in  small 
quantities.  He  discouraged  the  importation  of  wine  from 
Laguna.  He  took  measures  to  prevent  the  Chinese  from  coun 
terfeiting  or  chipping  coins,  and  he  declared  what  should  be 
legal  tender.  He  forbade  the  shipment  of  provisions  to  the 
beleaguered  city  and  refused  to  permit  the  natives  under  his 
jurisdiction  to  shelter  or  otherwise  assist  an  Englishman.  He 
prevented  secular  priests  from  communicating  with  the  arch 
bishop.  In  order  to  encourage  service  in  the  army  he  exempted 
natives  from  the  polo,  or  labor  tax,  and  he  also  made  certain 
exceptions  to  the  general  rule  for  the  payment  of  tribute  to 
offset  the  decree  of  the  British  who  had  offered  wholesale  ex 
emption  from  the  payment  of  tribute  in  order  to  attract  the 
natives.  Anda  issued  very  severe  orders  to  prevent  looting  and 


PS  By  this  seizure  the  sum  of  2,253,111  pesos  was  realized  in  the 
interests  of  his  government  and  at  the  same  time,  of  course,  it  was 
kept  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  British.  Anda  subsequently 
reported  to  Governor  Torre  that  the  capture  of  the  treasure  of  the 
"Filipino"  made  possible  the  conservation  of  the  Islands,  "and  that  the 
English  did  not  leave  them  completely  desolate,  since  without  this  aid, 
the  subsistence  of  the  state  would  have  been  impossible"  (Anda  to  Car 
los  III,  June  and  July,  1764,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XLIX,  299). 

The  fact  that  the  galleon  carried  a  cargo  of  over  two  million  pesos 
affords  no  small  insight  into  the  way  in  which  the  merchants  and  offi 
cials  obeyed  the  law  which  forbade  an  annual  return  exceeding  1,000,- 
000  pesos.  See  Martinez  de  Zuniga,  Estadismo,  I,  266-270. 


354         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

extortion  on  the  part  of  his  soldiers.  Because  of  the  alliance 
between  the  Chinese  and  the  British,  Anda  was  obliged  to  take 
repressive  measures  against  the  former.  He  forbade  games  of 
dice,  cock-fighting  and  card-playing  so  as  to  raise  the  morale 
of  the  natives,  to  prevent  thefts  and  to  encourage  law  and 
order.  He  prescribed  the  death  penalty  for  theft.  Anda's  rule 
was  little  less  than  a  dictatorship,  with  all  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment  centered  in  himself  and  in  his  immediate  advisors.9'1 
It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  when  Anda's  resistance 
gave  certain  assurances  of  success,  the  fiscal,  Viana,  and  the 
oidores,  Galban  and  Villacorta,  escaped  to  his  capital,  attached 
themselves  to  his  cause  and  assumed  a  share  in  his  government. 
Anda  was  willing  to  recognize  them  as  magistrates  of  the 
audiencia,  and  as  such  they  officiated.  Villacorta  made  some 
trouble  for  Anda,  however,  by  claiming  the  right  to  act  as 
governor  on  the  ground  that  he  was  Anda's  senior  in  the 
audiencia.  This  was  generally  recognized,  but  Anda  refused 
to  accede  to  his  demands,  and  the  matter  was  dropped  for  a 
time.100  Anda  found  that  his  colleagues,  Viana  and  Galban, 
were  of  the  opinion  that  Bishop  Ustariz  was  legally  entitled  to 
the  office  of  governor,  but  there  was  some  doubt  in  their  minds 
whether  he  should  be  invited  at  that  time  to  act  as  governor. 
Anda  consulted  the  Bishop  of  Camarines  and  that  prelate  ex 
pressed  his  willingness  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  the  audi 
encia.  The  August  hiians  and  Dominicans  wrere  of  the  same 
opinion,  but  the  Jesuits  and  Franciscans 

told  him,  that  in  the  then  (sic)  situation  of  the  islands  he  alone  could 
preserve  the  public  tranquillity,  and  on  that  account  he  ought  to  retain 
the  supreme  authority.  This  diversity  of  opinion  was  not  very  gratify 
ing  to  Sefior  Anda,  and  although  the  troops  were  in  his  favour,  he  was 
by  no  means  desirous  of  having  recourse  to  violence.101 


99  Anda  to  Carlos  III,  June  22,  1764,   Blair  and   Robertson,  XLIX, 
262-268. 

0 oo  Martinez  de  Zuiiiga,  An  historical  view.  II,  234-235. 

101  ibid..  II,  235;  see  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general.  II.  65-66. 


Royal  Approval  355 

Shortly  after  the  death  of  Archbishop  Rojo,  Anda  received 
dispatches  informing  him  that  peace  had  been  restored  between 
Spain  and  England  ;102  at  the  same  time  the  British  received 
orders  to  evacuate  the  city.  Now  that  Anda's  presence  in  the 
field  as  military  commander  was  no  longer  absolutely  required, 
a  three-cornered  fight  arose  among  the  supporters  of  Villacorta, 
Ustariz  and  Anda.  Each  of  these  contenders  was  able  to  ad 
vance  a  reasonable  claim.  Villacorta  was  certainly  the  senior 
magistrate,  and  thus  he  had  a  better  right  legally  to  the  office 
than  Anda.  Ustariz  was  bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia  and  as  such, 
was  entitled  to  the  governorship  according  to  the  most  recent 
law.  "Anda  had  in  his  favor  the  circumstance  of  having  de 
fended  the  islands,  and  of  having  prevented  the  English  from 
advancing  to  the  northern  provinces ;  and,  above  all,  he  com 
manded  the  troops,  who  were  attached  to  him,  and  this  served 
to  check  the  pretensions  of  the  others."103 

The  arrival  of  the  interim  governor,  Francisco  Xavier  de  la 
Torre,  put  an  end  to  these  disputes.  He  had  been  dispatched  to 
the  Islands  by  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain  with  the  title  of  teni- 
ente  del  rcy  (king's  lieutenant),  and  in  accordance  with  his  in 
structions  he  assumed  the  temporary  government  on  March  17, 
1764,  which  he  retained  until  the  arrival  of  Governor  Raon 
in  July,  1765.  Anda's  residencia  was  taken  by  his  successor, 
and  it  was  found  that  the  finances  of  the  colony  had  been 
faithfullv  and  honestlv  administered  during  his  administration. 


i»-  Montero  y  Vidal,  op.  cit.,  II,  68-70.  The  treaty  of  peace  between 
England  and  Spain  was  signed  on  February  10,  1763.  Notice  had  been 
served  on  Anda  several  times  that  suspensions  of  military  operations 
had  been  authorized,  but  the  oid-or-gobernador  was  suspicious,  and 
would  not  respond  to  the  overtures  of  the  British.  The  Spanish  troops 
under  Anda's  command  entered  Manila  on  June  10,  1764,  and  the  Brit 
ish  forces  evacuated  the  same  day.  Montero  y  Vidal  (op.  cit.,  II,  71) 
states  that  the  new  governor,  Torre,  feigned  illness  on  the  day  of  the 
transfer  of  sovereignty  that  Anda  might  be  enabled  to  receive  the  keys 
of  the  city  and  thus  not  be  deprived  of  the  honors  which  he  had  so 
faithfully  earned. 

lus  Martinez  de  Zuuiga,  An  historical  view,  II,  241. 


356         Audiencia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

He  was  able  to  account  for  all  of  the  money  taken  from  the 
"Filipino",  turning;  over  two  million  pesos  of  these  funds  to 
the  new  governor,  accounting-  for  the  balance.  Anda  was  re 
called  to  Spain,  where  he  was  presented  at  court,  receiving: 
the  personal  thanks  of  the  sovereign.104 

Torre's  accession  to  the  governorship  marks  the  discontinu 
ance  in  the  Philippines  of  the  practice  of  allowing  the  arch 
bishop  to  take  charge  of  the  government  during  vacancies. 
On  no  subsequent  occasion  in  the  history  of  the  Islands  did  an 
ecclesiastic  take  over  the  rule  of  the  Islands.105  It  would  seem 
that  this  plan  of  succession  was  abandoned  quite  generally 
throughout  Spain's  dominions,  though  there  is  no  instance  in 
which  the  rule  of  a  prelate  ever  resulted  quite  so  disastrously 
as  in  the  Philippines  from  1762  to  1764.  Torre's  accession 
marks  the  return  to  the  practice  introduced  in  1608  and  fol 
lowed  from  time  to  time  throughout  the  history  of  the  Islands. 

The  audiencia,  as  a  tribunal,  concerned  itself  no  further 
with  the  temporary  government  of  the  Islands.  On  Septem 
ber  30,  1762,  a  new  cedula  authorized  the  appointment  of  a 
teniente  del  rey  by  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain,  and  the  succes 
sion  of  this  official  was  ordered  in  case  of  a  vacancy.  This  law 
was  repromulgated  on  two  subsequent  occasions,  the  first  time 
on  November  23,  1774,  and  again  on  July  2,  1779. 106  The  plan 
of  succession  which  it  authorized  was  followed  quite  generally 
in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Islands,  until  the  separation  of 
New  Spain  in  1821  rendered  impossible  the  appointment  of  a 
teniente  by  the  viceroy.  Anda's  government  was  the  last  occa 
sion  on  which  the  audiencia,  in  reality  or  in  theory,  ever  at 
tempted  to  rule  by  its  own  right,  except  by  association  with 


i<)4  Anda  was  made  Councillor  of  Castile  on  November  6,  1767.  A 
life's  pension  was  bestowed  on  him  on  November  19,  1769.  He  re 
mained  in  Spain  until  1770  when  he  returned  to  the  Philippines  as 
governor  (A.  I.,  106-4-4). 

105  in  Mexico  two  prelates  governed  ad  interim  after  this  time — 
Peralta  in  1787  and  Beaumont  in  1809.  Bolton,  Guide,  469-470. 

io«  Cedillas  of  November  23,  1774,  and  July  2,  1779,  A.  I.,  102-2-9. 


The  Audiencia's  Ride  Abolished  357 

the  teniente  del  rey,  with  whom  it  acted  in  the  usual  advisory 
capacity,  as  authorized'  in  the  above-mentioned  laws. 

By  the  Royal  Instruction  of  Regents  of  1776,  the  regent  was 
authorized  to  act  as  president  of  the  audiencia  during  the 
absence  of  the  governor,  and  in  case  there  were  no  regent,  the 
senior  magistrate  of  the  audiencia  was  to  take  his  place.107  This 
law  was  confirmed  by  the  cedula  of  August  2,  1789,  which 
ordered  that  viceroys  and  presidents,  on  going  outside  of  their 
capitals,  "should  assign  to  the  regents  the  faculties  for  the 
dispatch  of  the  most  important  and  immediate  affairs."108  A 
subsequent  law,  dated  July  30,  1779,  stated  that  "these  im 
portant  and  immediate  affairs"  did  not  include  "the  duties  and 
functions  of  the  captain-general."  Again,  the  royal  order  of 
October  23,  1806,109  commanded  that  the  audiencia  should  in 
no  case  take  control  of  the  government  when  there  was  a 
vacancy,  but  that  the  name  of  the  temporary  governor  should 
be  contained  in  an  envelope  which  was  to  be  opened  on  the 
death  of  the  governor,  or  on  his  absence  from  the  district.  In 
case  provision  had  not  been  made  in  this  way,  it  was  ordered 
that  the  government  should  be  taken  over  by  the  ranking  mili 
tary  officer  of  the  colony,  if  he  were  higher  than  the  grade  of 
colonel ;  if  not,  the  regent  or  decano  should  be  temporary  presi 
dent,  governor  and  captain-general,  without  ceding  the  exercise 
of  any  of  the  functions  of  this  office  to  the  audiencia.110  This 
law  was  suspended  by  the  royal  order  of  July  12,  1812,  and  by 
the  decree  of  November  2,  1834,  which  ordered  that  the  segundo 
cabo,  or  lieutenant-commander  of  the  king's  forces  should  suc- 


!07  Articles  61  and  63,  Royal  Instruction  of  Regents,  Rodriguez  San 
Pedro,  Lcgislacwn  ultramarina,  VII,  22-28.  This  Instruction  trans- 
belonged  to  the  senior  magistrates  of  the  audiencias.  These  are  de 
ferred  to  the  regent  all  the  powers  and  prerogatives  which  formerly 
fined  in  RecopHacitin,  2-15-57  and  58. 

los  Recopilacion,  2-15,  note  16. 

i"9/6td.;  also  A.  I.,  102-2-9. 

no  Royal  order  of  October  25,  1806,  Recopilacion  (1841),  II,  Apcnchce. 


358        Audiencia  and  Governor:  The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

ceed  the  governor  and  captain-general.111  It  is  important  to 
note  that  these  laws  were  applicable  throughout  the  Spanish 
colonial  empire.  Subsequent  vacancies  in  the  Philippines  were 
filled  by  military  men,  and  the  audiencia  refrained  from  inter 
ference  with  the  government. 

Considering  the  question  in  its  broadest  phases,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  the  audiencia  administered  the  ad  interim  rule 
with  a  great  degree  of  success.  This  method  of  filling  vacancies 
in  the  governorship  failed  for  a  number  of  reasons.  Owing  to 
the  divided  composition  of  the  tribunal,  the  rivalry  and  per 
sonal  jealously  of  the  magistrates  and  the  perpetual  quarrels 
and  struggles  wrhich  arose  as  a  consequence,  the  periods  of  its 
rule  became  wild  scrambles  for  power  in  which  the  strongest 
survived  and  reaped  all  the  benefits  of  office.  By  their  example, 
the  oidorcs  stimulated  others  to  wrong-doing,  and  in  their  ef 
forts  to  secure  advantages  for  themselves  they  oppressed  the 
residents,  Spanish  and  native,  with  the  burden  of  their  misrule. 
They  did  not  scruple  to  indulge  in  dishonest  practices  when 
ever  occasion  offered;  indeed,  they  went  out  of  their  way  to 
seek  such  opportunities. 

Perhaps  the  gravest  defect  of  the  rule  of  the  audiencia  lay 
in  its  failure  as  an  executive,  owing  to  the  divided  character  of 
its  composition.  There  was  much  jealousy,  but  neither  unity  nor 
centralized  responsibility.  In  their  governmental  capacity  the 
oidores  frequently  enacted  measures  and  made  recommendations 
of  a  statesmanlike  character,  although  they  did  not  always 
succeed  in  enforcing  them.  The  magistrates  were  neither  ex 
perienced  legislators  nor  trained  soldiers,  and  the  latter  defect 
seems  to  have  been  a  cause  of  considerable  dissatisfaction,  es 
pecially  among  the  military  classes.  These  were  naturally 
jealous  of  an  assumption  of  military  power  by  lawyers,  whose 
commands  they  refused  to  obey.  Nevertheless  it  must  be  con- 


Rogdriguez  San  Pedro,  Legislation  ultramarina,  I,  90-91. 


Failure  of  Ecclesiastical  Government  359 

ceded  that  such  individual  oidores  as  Morga,  Alcaraz,  Almansa 
and  Anda  acquitted  themselves  of  their  military  duties  with 
great  credit  when  called  upon. 

The  reform  which  gave  the  government  to  the  churchmen 
was  designed  to  obviate  the  defects  expressed  above.  It  was 
believed  that  a  prelate  would  not  be  open  to  so  many  ventures 
of  a  questionable  and  mainly  commercial  character.  Moreover, 
the  archbishops  in  Mexico  and  elsewhere  had  fulfilled  the 
duties  of  the  executive  on  former  occasions  with  a  fair  degree 
of  success.  The  church  was  the  most  powerful,  highly  cen 
tralized  and  unified  institution  in  the  Philippines  at  the  time 
when  both  the  audiencia  and  the  governorship  were  weakest. 
The  ecclesiastical  authority  had  repeatedly  triumphed  over  the 
civil  government,  and  the  former  gave  promise  of  being  able 
to  control  matters  more  effectively  in  the  future  than  the 
audiencia  had  done  in  the  past.  The  rule  of  the  churchmen 
did  not  remedy  matters,  however,  except  that  it  produced  har 
mony  through  the  exercise  of  force.  During  the  rule  of  the 
archbishops,  wyith  the  exception  of  that  of  Rojo,  the  audiencia 
was  so  completely  dominated  by  the  ecclesiastical  power  that 
the  tribunal  could  scarcely  be  considered  a  factor  in  the  gov 
ernment. 

There  were  various  defects  in  the  rule  of  the  ecclesiastics. 
Of  these,  perhaps  the  most  prominent  was  their  failure  to  meet 
the  military  requirements  of  the  position.  Because  of  the  natural 
incongruity  existing  between  ecclesiastical  and  military  duties, 
they  were  obliged  to  delegate  the  command  of  the  troops  to  mili 
tary  leaders,  who  thus  exercised  an  influence  never  realized  by 
them  during  the  rule  of  the  audiencia.  Archbishop  Rojo  was  un 
willing  to  trust  the  problem  of  defense  to  any  other  person, 
though  unable  to  cope  with  the  situation  himself.  Hence  Anda 
forced  his  way  to  the  front  because  he  was  fitted  to  command 
and  Rojo  was  not.  As  administrators  and  executives  the  pre 
lates  were  as  efficient  as  any  others,  but  they  were  never  able 


360         Aiidicncia  and  Governor:   The  Ad  Interim  Rule 

to  reconcile  successfully  the  opposition  of  the  civil,  political, 
and  commercial  elements,  who  were  displeased  with  the  rule 
of  an  ecclesiastic.  Surprising  as  it  may  seem,  the  government 
of  a  prelate  was  usually  most  unsatisfactory  to  the  churchmen 
and  religious  authorities.  If  the  prelate-governor  were  a  friar, 
his  rule  was  resented  by  the  members  of  all  the  rival  orders. 
If  he  were  a  secular  priest,  he  was  opposed  by  the  friars  of 
all  the  orders. 

The  failure  of  Rojo  was  enough  to  condemn  the  practice  of 
permitting  ecclesiastics  to  assume  the  government,  but  aside 
from  that,  there  was  a  more  significant  and  fundamental 
reason.  The  increasing  political  authority  of  the  church  at 
tnat  time,  both  in  the  colonies  and  in  the  mother  country,  its 
widespread  and  almost  irresistible  dominance  over  temporal 
affairs,  demanded  a  radical  change  of  policy  whereby  this 
dangerous  ecclesiastical  power  could  be  checked.  The  rule  of 
Aiida,  though  technically  based  on  that  law  which  gave  the 
succession  to  the  tribunal,  was  not  a  typical  instance  of  the 
government  of  the  audiencia,  nor  did  that  period  present  all 
the  features  of  such  a  rule.  The  influence  of  the  audiencia 
as  a  body  was  practically  nil.  Anda  governed  because  he  was 
a  strong  man,  not  because  he  was  sole  oidor  or  because  he  was 
lieutenant-governor.  His  government  wras  virtually  a  dictator 
ship,  based  on  military  power,  but,  nevertheless,  just  and  benevo 
lent.  His  extra-judicial  actions  met  with  the  king's  approval, 
because  they  were  efficient. 

History  will  show  that  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  assumed 
temporary  charge  of  the  government  because  the  distance  and 
isolation  of  the  colony  rendered  such  a  course  necessary  and 
because  it  was  thought  that  the  audiencia  was  best  fitted  to 
assume  control.  The  government  by  the  audiencia  in  the 
Philippines  was  not  an  isolated  incident,  but  was  typical  of  the 
entire  Spanish  colonial  empire.  Owing  to  the  conditions  which 
we  have  noted,  and  judged  by  the  standards  which  constitute 


Character  of  tlie  Audiencia's  Rule  361 

good  government,  the  rule  of  the  audiencia  was  neither  suc 
cessful  nor  satisfactory.  Its  most  far-reaching  defect,  as  far  as 
the  relations  of  the  -audiencia  and  the  governor  were  concerned, 
lay  in  the  wholesale  exercise  of  administrative  and  military 
functions  by  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia.  This  impaired  the 
quality  of  their  services  as  impartial  magistrates  and  contributed 
in  most  cases  to  an  insatiable  thirst  for  power.  The  magis 
trates  were  loath  to  surrender  the  exercise  of  these  govern 
mental  activities  on  the  accession  of  the  succeeding  governor, 
the  audiencia  displaying  a  marked  tendency  to  continue  in  the 
oxercise  of  administrative  control.  This,  then,  was  a  decided 
cause  of  strife  and  dissension  between  the  audiencia  and  the 
governor. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  AUDIENCIA  AND  THE  CHUKCH :  THE  EOYAL 
PATRONAGE 

The  audiencia  was  frequently  brought  into  contact  with  the 
powerful  ecclesiastical  organization  in  the  Philippines.  We 
have  already  referred  in  this  book  to  some  of  the  notable  occa 
sions  of  this  relationship.  Before  the  establishment  of  the 
audiencia  the  church  exercised  an  extensive  authority  in  gov 
ernmental  affairs.  The  ecclesiastics  aided  the  civil  government, 
by  administering  justice  in  the  provinces  when  there  were  no 
civil  courts.  The  prelates  of  the  Islands,  the  provincials  of  the 
religious  orders  and  even  the  friars  advised  the  governors  and 
provincial  officials  on  Indian  affairs  and  the  administration  of 
the  cncomiendas.  When  the  advice  of  the  church  was  solicited 
by  the  home  government  as  to  the  advisability  of  removing  the 
audiencia,  the  suggestions  of  Fray  Alonso  Sanchez  and  Bishop 
Salazar  went  far  toward  bringing  about  a  final  solution  of  the 
problem  of  government  in  the  Philippines.1  These  were  some 
of  the  ways  in  which  the  influence  of  the  church  was  impressed 
upon  the  audiencia. 

The  creation  of  an  audiencia,  with  judicial  and  advisory 
functions,  put  an  end  to  the  exercise  of  these  extraordinary 
powers  by  the  church  and  tended  to  confine  its  activities  to 
the  ecclesiastical  field.  Nevertheless,  the  prelates  continued  to 
advise  the  governors  in  administrative  matters  throughout  the 
entire  history  of  the  Islands.  Their  influence  was  especially 
strong  in  matters  relating  to  the  natives,  their  government  and 
protection,  and  the  archbishops  even  went  so  far  at  times  as  to 


i  Concepcion,  Historia  general.  Ill,  336,  et  seg.     This  is  discussed  in 
Chapter  II  of  this  volume.     Original  materials  exist  in  A.  I.,  68-1-32. 


Influence  of  Church  363 

give  advice  on  questions  of  foreign  policy.  Most  of  the  time 
this  counsel  was  solicited  and  was  well  received.  From  1650 
onwards,  as  we  noted  in  the  last  chapter,  the  church  waxed 
exceedingly  strong  in  the  Philippines  and  the  prelates  not  only 
advised,  but  dominated  governors  and  audiencias.  In  1668, 
Governor  Diego  Salcedo  was  unseated,  imprisoned  and  exiled 
by  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  while  a  pliant  magistrate 
of  the  audiencia  took  over  the  government  and  administered 
affairs  in  a  manner  entirely  satisfactory  to  his  ecclesiastical 
supporters.  The  period  from  1684  to  1690  showed  the  weak 
ness  of  the  audiencia  when  opposed  by  a  powerful  prelate 
allied  to  a  hostile  governor.  And  in  1719  the  church  reached 
the  climax  of  its  power  by  bringing  about  the  murder  of  a 
governor,  and  then  succeeding  him,  overcoming  every  opposing 
element  in  the  colony,  including  the  audiencia.  From  that  time 
onward  the  prelates  governed  during  vacancies  in  the  governor 
ship — something  which  the  audiencia  had  failed  to  do.  Finally, 
in  1762,  Simon  de  Ancla  y  Salazar  assumed  the  reigns  of  govern 
ment  and  the  obligations  of  defense,  an  act  which  was  sanc 
tioned  technically  because  he  was  an  o-iclor  but  realty  because 
he  was  an  able  man,  capable  of  accomplishing  what  the  church 
had  failed  to  do. 

In  this  chapter  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  review  the  historical 
facts  of  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  and  the  church  or  the 
growth  of  clerical  influence  over  the  audiencia.  These  matters 
have  been  referred  to  in  earlier  chapters.  It  is  rather  the 
design  to  study  here  the  influence  which  the  audiencia,  in  its 
turn,  exercised  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  noting  whence  it  de 
rived  its  authority  and  what  was  the  nature  of  its  powers. 

The  audiencia  was  established  as  the  ultimate  local  au 
thority,  co-ordinate  with  the  governor  (or  the  viceroy  in  New 
Spain  or  Peru),  for  enforcing  the  laws  of  the  royal  patronage.2 


2  The  royal  patronage  in  the  Indies  was  based  on  the  bulls  of  Alex 
ander  VI,  dated  May  4,  1493,  and  November  16,  1501,  and  on  that  of 


364           Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

Not  only  was  it  authorized  to  act  as  a  tribunal  in  these  matters, 
but  also  to  officiate  as  an  active  executive  agent.  It  is  clear 
that  although  the  governor  was  the  royal  vicepatron,  he  was 
not  expected  to  act  alone  and  unsupported  in  dealing  with  the 
powerful  and  often  hostile  ecclesiastical  authority.  In  former 


Julius  II,  dated  July  28,  1508.  By  the  first  two  bulls  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  Indies  was  conceded  to  the  monarchs 
of  Spain  and  by  the  last  one  the  universal  patronato  was  given.  Aside 
from  the  responsibilities  of  government,  this  concession  involved  the 
duty  of  christianizing  the  natives  and  the  right  of  collecting  tithes 
from  them.  By  virtue  of  these  papal  bulls  the  Spanish  rulers  were 
granted  the  right  of  nominating  prelates  for  the  Indies,  the  assign 
ment  of  benefices  and  provinces  to  the  different  orders,  the  confirma 
tion  of  minor  ecclesiastical  appointments,  and,  in  fact,  general  super 
vision  and  control  over  the  regular  and  secular  clergy  in  the  colonies 
(Reoopila  citin,  1-6-1  to  7).  By  these  acts  the  pope  was  relieved  of  all 
direct  responsibility  for  the  spiritual  government  of  Spain's  over-sea 
dominions,  his  authority  being  limited  to  the  approval  of  prelates  nomi 
nated  by  the  Spanish  king  and  to  other  ecclesiastical  duties  of  a  nom 
inal  character. 

The  patronato  real  in  Spain  furnished  a  precedent  for  that  of  her 
colonial  empire.  Although  the  royal  patronage  in  Spain  and  in  the 
colonies  were  closely  associated,  the  beginning  of  this  relationship 
may  be  found  in  the  early  years  of  Spanish  history,  when  concessions 
were  granted  by  the  king  to  nobles,  cities,  and  similarly,  to  church 
men,  in  exchange  for  fealty  of  some  sort.  For  example,  the  vast  tracts 
of  land  in  Spain  were  received  by  the  church  as  a  gift  from  the  state, 
wherefore  the  state  reserved  the  right  to  declare  who  should  hold  these 
lands  and  enjoy  these  privileges  and  also  the  power  to  dictate  the 
conditions  under  which  they  were  to  be  held.  The  right  of  appoint 
ment  by  the  crown  to  vacant  benefices  and  to  all  the  higher  church 
offices  were  applications  of  this  principle.  (See  Cunningham,  "The 
institutional  background  of  Latin  American  history,"  in  the  Hispanic 
American  historical  review.  Vol.  I,  pp.  24-39.) 

The  concession  of  1501  by  Alexander  VI  was  only  one  of  a  number 
of  privileges  of  the  sort  accorded  by  the  popes  to  the  Spanish  crown. 
The  emperor,  Charles  V,  obtained  from  Pope  Hadrian  VI  the  perpetual 
right  to  nominate  prelates  and  abbots  to  vacant  benefices.  In  1543 
the  Spanish  government  further  demanded  and  received  the  conces 
sion  that  all  posts  within  the  church  in  Spain  and  her  colonies  should 
be  held  by  Spaniards.  In  1538  the  right  of  the  church  to  issue  bulls 
and  briefs  affecting  the  colonies  was  limited.  In  1574  Philip  II  de 
clared  that  the  right  of  patronage  belonged  privately  to  the  king.  As 
a  result  of  this,  says  Professor  Altamira,  "the  Spanish  clergy  con 
sidered  itself  more  closely  bound  to  the  king  than  to  the  pope,  .  .  . 
more  dependent  on  the  court  than  on  the  curia,  .  .  .  more  eager  for 
the  privileges  of  the  crown  than  for  the  rights  of  the  church,  .  .  . 
the  bishops  were  obliged  to  obey  the  monarch  more  than  the  arch 
bishop."  (Altamira  y  Crevea,  Histnria.  Ill,  418-19.) 

The   laws  of  the  royal   patronage   centralized   the   supervision   and 


The  Basis  of  Royal  Patronage  365 

chapters  of  this  treatise  attention  has  been  given  to  the  con 
siderations  which  forced  him  to  share  the  duties  and  responsi 
bilities  of  government,  finance,  commercial  supervision,  and 
even  military  affairs  with  the  audiencia ;  the  support  of  that 
body  was  even  more  necessary  in  dealing  with  the  powerful 
ecclesiastical  organization. 

The   authority   which   the   audiencia    exercised   jointly   with 
the  royal  vicepatron  was  based  upon  the  law  ordering 

our  viceroys,  presidents,  oulorcs  and  governors  of  the  Indies  to  see, 
guard,  and  fulfill  (the  laws),  and  in  the  provinces,  towns,  and  churches 
(in  the  Indies)  to  see  that  all  laws  and  pre-eminences  which  pertain  to 
our  royal  patronage  are  guarded  and  fulfilled,  .  .  .  which  they  will 
do  by  the  best  means  that  may  appear  to  them  convenient,  giving  all 
the  orders  and  instructions  necessary  to  the  end  that  all  (the  instruc 
tions)  that  we  may  give  shall  be  carried  out  in  due  form;  and  we  pray 
and  charge'^  our  bishops  and  archbishops,  deans,  and  ecclesiastical 
chapters  of  the  metropolitan  and  cathedral  churches  and  cathedrals 
and  all  the  curates  and  occupants  of  benefices,  clerics,  sacristans  and 
other  ecclesiastical  persons,  and  the  provincials,  guardians,  priors  and 
other  religious  of  the  orders,  in  so  far  as  it  is  incumbent  upon  them, 
to  guard  and  fulfill  them  (the  laws  and  preeminences  of  the  king) 
and  see  them  fulfilled  and  obeyed,  conforming  with  our  viceroys, 


control  of  the  clergy  of  the  Philippines  in  the  person  of  the  governor 
of  the  Islands.  The  latter  was  vicepatron  and  representative  of  the 
king  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  He  was  the  responsible  head  of  church 
affairs  in  the  Islands  so  far  as  these  matters  concerned  the  govern 
ment.  He  was  legally  authorized  and  required  to  receive  and  assign 
prelates,  to  confirm  minor  appointments  by  the  prelates  to  parishes 
and  curacies,  to  make  removals  from  the  same  when  necessary,  to 
make  temporary  assignments  of  provinces  to  the  regulars  and  to  sup 
port  the  prelates  in  the  exercise  of  episcopal  visitation.  His  consent 
was  necessary  to  the  suppression,  division,  or  union  of  districts,  cura 
cies  and  parishes,  and  no  priest  could  leave  the  Islands  without  his 
consent.  The  king  was  patron,  but  the  exercise  of  his  authority  in 
the  colonies  was  delegated  to  the  respective  viceroys  and  governors. 
See  entire  title  of  Reoopilacwn,  1-6;  for  general  observations  on  the 
royal  patronage  see  Gomez  Zamora,  Rcgio  patronato;  Parras,  El  gobi- 
rrno  df  los  regularc.s  dc  la  America,  I,  2-16;  Mendieta,  Historia  cclesi- 
astica,  20-21,  186-196;  Hernaez,  Coleccion  de  Tjula-s.  12-28. 

"  This  is  a  translation  of  rueao  }/  cnearyo,  which  form  civil  officials 
were  required  to  employ  on  all  occasions  in  addressing  ecclesiastical 
officials.  The  king  himself  observed  this  rule  and  his  act  was  sup 
posed  to  form  a  precedent  for  general  use  within  the  Spanish  colonial 
empire. 


366  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

presidents,  audiencias  and  governors  as  much  as  may  be  appropriate 
and  necessary. * 

In  accordance  with  this  law  the  audiencia  exercised  the  right 
of  intervention  in  practically  all  matters  to  which  the  authority 
of  the  vicepatron  extended.  Foremost  among  these  were  the 
supervision  and  administration  of  ecclesiastical  revenues,  the 
administration  of  vacant  benefices,  the  extension  of  missionary 
influences  and  the  construction  of  churches  and  monasteries. 
The  audiencia,  moreover,  had  authority  over  the  reception  and 
installation  of  prelates,  parish  priests,  and  regulars,  and  their 
removal  for  cause.  In  all  these  matters  the  audiencia  was 
responsible  directly  to  the  king  and  made  reports  thereon;  in 
fact,  it  may  be  said  that  the  tribunal,  in  co-ordination  with  the 
vicepatron,  served  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  church  in 
the  Islands  and  the  royal  council  in  Spain. 

An  analysis  of  the  relations  between  the  audiencia  and  the 
church  will  show  that  the  tribunal  exercised  two  kinds  of 
ecclesiastical  powers.  These  may  be  regarded  respectively  as 
executive  and  judicial.  Although  it  was  in  their  union  that 
the  audiencia  exercised  its  most  extensive  and  far-reaching 
power  of  ecclesiastical  control,  it  is  advisable  for  several  rea 
sons  that  these  powers  should  be  considered  as  distinct  from 
one  another.  They  will  therefore  be  discussed  separately  in 
this  treatise.  In  this  chapter  we  shall  consider  only  the  first 
of  these  powers — the  one  which  was  most  directly  concerned 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  royal  patronage — namely,  the  au 
thority  which  the  audiencia  exercised  co-ordinately  with  the 
governor  in  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  church  in  the 
colony. 

Although  there  appears  to  have  been  no  conflict  of  authority 
between  the  governor  and  the  audiencia  over  their  mutual 
relations  under  the  laws  of  the  royal  patronage,  it  is  advisable 
at  the  outset  to  settle  one  difficulty  which  may  present  itself  in 


*  Recopilacion,  1-6-47. 


Growth  of  Audiencia' s  Authority  367 

tliis  connection.  Many  of  these  powers  which  the  audiencia 
exercised  were  conferred  upon  the  vicepatron  exclusively. 
Indeed,  a  study  of  the  laws  alone  would  suggest  the  possibility 
of  a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  the  governor  and  the 
audiencia  in  matters  relating  to  the  royal  patronage.  In  actual 
practice,  however,  the  governor  shared  the  powers  of  ecclesi 
astical  supervision  with  the  audiencia,  and  their  relations  were 
harmonious  in  all  matters  appertaining  thereto.  Indeed,  there 
is  record  of  fewer  conflicts  between  the  audiencia  and  the  gov 
ernor  in  this  field  of  activity  than  in  any  other. 

It  would  seem  that  the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  in 
ecclesiastical  matters  developed  in  the  same  manner  and  for 
the  same  reason  as  it  came  to  have  authority  in  matters  of 
government,  finance  and  military  administration.  The  manifest 
impossibility  of  the  successful  administration  of  the  many 
affairs  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government  by  the  governor 
(or  viceroy  in  New  Spain  and  Peru)  made  inevitable  the  divi 
sion  of  power,  which,  though  real,  was  not  always  formally 
recognized  by  the  laws.  The  audiencia  was  the  only  body 
available  with  which  the  governor  (or  viceroy)  might  share 
these  responsibilities.  Its  judicial  character,  and  the  talent, 
training,  and  administrative  ability  and  experience  (wider  than 
that  of  the  governor  himself)  of  its  members  made  it  the 
logical  institution  to  which  the  executive  should  naturally  turn 
for  advice  and  assistance.  Not  only  did  he  require  counsel, 
but  the  moral  and  physical  support  of  a  tribunal  of  weight 
and  authority  was  invaluable  in  dealing  with  the  united  forces 
of  a  powerful  ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  This  is  the  best  possi 
ble  explanation  of  that  gradual  assumption  of  authority  by  the 
audiencia  which  seems  to  have  been  so  indefinitely,  yet  freely 
conceded,  and  which  apparently  grew  up  neither  in  conflict 
with  the  law  nor  yet  entirely  in  accord  with  it,  but  which, 
now  recognized,  and  now  ignored,  was  never  denied  or  pro 
hibited. 


368  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

The  ccdula  of  October  6,  1578,  in  explanation  of  the  various 
forms  of  address  in  the  expedition  of  royal  cedillas,  was  de 
signed  to  make  clear  the  respective  jurisdictions  of  the  vice- 
patron  and  the  audiencia  in  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  in  other 
governmental  affairs.  It  ordered  that 

when  our  royal  cedillas  refer  in  particular  to  the  viceroys,  they  alone 
shall  attend  to  their  fulfillment  without  other  intervention;  if  they 
designate  the  viceroy,  or  president  or  audiencia,  they  shall  all  attend 
to  their  execution  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  greater 
part  of  them  that  are  in  the  audiencia,  and  the  viceroy  or  president 
shall  not  have  more  than  one  vote  like  the  rest  that  may  be  present, 
provided  that  this  do  not  contravene  the  superior  government  which 
we  regularly  commit  to  our  viceroys  and  presidents. •> 

While  more  than  a  joint  authority  with  the  vicepatron  cannot 
be  claimed  for  the  audiencia,  and  that  authority  not  neces 
sarily  coequal,  this  cedilla  established  beyond  question  the 
royal  intention  of  recognizing  the  audiencia  as  a  support  and 
an  aid  to  the  governor.  This  law  applied  to  all  the  affairs  of 
government,  not  pertaining  any  more  extensively  to  the  ecclesi 
astical  than  to  the  administrative  sphere,  but  this  cedilla,  to 
gether  with  what  actually  happened,  may  be  taken  as  evidence 
that  the  audiencia  was  meant  to  have  jurisdiction  in  ecclesi 
astical  affairs  when  royal  cedillas  granting  or  assuming  the 
exercise  of  such  jurisdiction  were  addressed  to  it. 

The  right  of  the  officials  of  the  civil  government  to  interfere 
in  questions  of  patronage  was  seldom  seriously  questioned  by 
the  churchmen,  although  there  were  some  notable  instances  in 
which  religious  authorities  objected  to  this  exercise  of  power. 
Bishop  Salazar,  in  his  opposition  to  the  plan  of  Fray  Alonso 


•''Ibid.,  2-1-10.  Laws  11  and  12  of  the  same  title  did  not  in  any 
way  diminish  the  authority  of  the  royal  audienca.  Law  11,  dated  May 
16,  1571,  antedating  the  one  above  quoted,  declared  that  although 
cedillas  on  governmental  subjects  were  occasionally  addressed  to  the 
"president  and  oidores,"  the  viceroys  and  presidents  might  have  private 
jurisdiction  over  these  matters.  Law  12,  dated  April  6,  1638,  recog 
nized  the  fact  that  ministers  of  justice  were  frequently  addressed  on 
(governmental)  subjects,  which,  it  declared,  should  not  be  construed 
to  prejudice  the  viceroy's  pre-eminence  in  these  matters. 


Ecclesiastical  Opposition  369 

Sanchez  at  the  court  of  Madrid  (1593-1595),  expressed  his  dis 
approval  of  the  interference  of  the  governor  and  audiencia 
in  questions  of  patronage.  His  opposition  is  further  attested 
by  several  of  his  letters  and  declarations  enunciated  previous 
to  that  time.6  He  admitted  that  the  civil  government,  by 
virtue'  of  the  bulls  of  Alexander  VI  and  Julius  II,  should  act 
as  the  defender  and  champion  of  the  church,  but  he  opposed 
any  further  participation  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  by  the  civil 
power.  Salazar's  arguments  are  worth  noting  because  they 
were  advanced  during  the  formative  period  of  the  Islands' 
history.  It  W7as  during  his  prelacy  that  the  basis  of  all  future 
relations  of  church  and  state  was  established.  The  arguments 
of  Bishop  Salazar  were  repeated  with  little  variation  by  Arch 
bishop  Poblete  in  his  controversy  with  Governor  Solcedo  in  1665 
and  later  by  Archbishop  Pardo  in  1686. 7 


« Concepcion,  as  cited  in  note  1  of  this  chapter.  Salazar's  argu 
ments  are  outlined  in  Chapter  II  of  this  treatise. 

7  Archbishop  Pardo's  well  known  opposition  to  the  exercise  of  gov 
ernmental  control  on  the  basis  of  the  royal  patronage  and  his  resist 
ance  to  the  pretensions  of  ultimate  superiority  over  the  church  which 
the  temporal  government  claimed  and  assumed  are  referred  to  in 
another  part  of  this  treatise.  In  a  letter  written  by  the  archbishop 
relative  to  the  ecclesiastical  controversy  bearing  his  name,  Pardo 
made  the  assertion  that  no  person  was  more  zealous  to  encourage  or 
conform  to  the  royal  authority  than  he,  for  he  realized  the  necessity  of 
complete  temporal  jurisdiction  over  all  things  secular.  He  stated  that 
he  had  always  encouraged  the  ecclesiastics  to  comply  with  the  just 
demands  of  the  civil  government,  "for  it  is  just,"  he  wrote  to  the 
king,  "to  observe  the  temporal  things  over  which  Your  Majesty  has 
providence,  since  the  secular  power  must  be  obeyed,  .  .  .  yet  I  cannot 
offend  the  royal  person  by  allowing  him  or  his  servants  to  transgress 
the  rules  or  authority  of  God  without  interposing  my  influence  against 
it,  even  at  the  risk  of  being  disgraced;  .  .  .  while  I  am  allied  to  the 
civil  authority  in  things  secular,  I  am  the  superior  in  spiritual  mat 
ters."  He  continued:  "God  has  placed  side  by  side  the  ecclesiastical 
and  temporal  authorities  and  the  latter  were  intended  to  be  subject  to 
the  former,  and  therefore,  the  temporal  ministers  ought  to  cede  to  the 
spiritual,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  It  is 
manifestly  unjust,  therefore,  that  a  governor,  maentrc  de  cnmpo,  or 
other  royal  official  should  command  or  summon  to  justice  a  prelate  who 
is  charged  with  the  welfare  of  the  souls  of  the  people  of  his  common 
wealth"  (Pardo  to  King,  September  7,  1686,  A.  I.,  68-1-44). 

A  violent,  though  ineffective  resistance  was  maintained  by  the 
church  when  Governor  Simon  de  Anda  y  Salazar  sought  to  abolish 


370          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

In  considering  this  question,  the  calm  and  impartial  judg 
ment  of  a  scholar  is  eminently  preferable  to  the  passionate 
arguments  of  a  prelate  deeply  concerned  in  the  outcome  of  the 
dispute.  Let  us  turn  from  the  field  of  original  research  to  a 
modern  Spanish  writer  on  church  history  and  law.  Fray 
Matias  Gomez  Zamora,  writing  from  the  vantage  ground  of 
the  modern  day,  characterizes  the  acts  of  the  government  offi 
cials  of  the  earlier  era  as  excessive  and  unjustified  by  papal 
bull  or  ecclesiastical  canon.  He  even  goes  a  step  farther  when 
he  declares  that  "many  royal  decrees  and  cedillas  were  wrong 
fully  issued,  without  proper  basis."  He  cites  examples  to 
prove  his  contention  and  among  these  he  points  to  the  founda- 


certain  practices  observed  in  the  chanting  of  mass.  Anda  based  his 
action  on  his  authority  as  vicepatron.  In  his  stand  he  was  supported 
by  the  archbishop  and  by  two  suffragan  bishops.  However,  Bishop 
de  Luna,  of  Camarines,  who  was  also  papal  delegate,  violently  opposed 
"sending  [a  copy  of]  this  scandalous  mandate  to  the  royal  Audiencia — 
a  body  consisting  of  three  magistrates,  to  whom  an  appeal  may  lie 
against  the  governor"  (Letter  of  a  Franciscan  Friar,  December  13, 
1771,  Blair  and  Robertson,  L,  318-319.)  That  a  soldier  should  be  the 
final  arbiter  in  a  question  belonging  so  pre-eminently  to  the  ecclesi 
astical  sphere,  seemed  to  this  bishop  to  be  entirely  subversive  of  the 
interests  of  religion  and  he  turned  to  the  audiencia  for  protection  and 
support.  The  governor  sent  a  squad  of  soldiers  to  arrest  the  prelate, 
and  the  latter  was  forced  to  leave  the  Islands. 

In  1770,  Governor  Anda  was  vehemently  opposed  by  the  ecclesi 
astical  authorities  of  the  colony  in  his  efforts,  as  the  churchmen  de 
scribed  it,  "to  interfere  in  the  governmental  and  judicial  rights  and 
pre-eminences  of  the  church."  This  was  during  the  struggle  over 
the  question  of  episcopal  visitation;  in  this  matter  the  governor  sup 
ported  the  archbishop.  The  former  had  gone  so  far  as  to  declare  that 
the  friars  had  neither  the  right  nor  the  authority  to  administer  the 
sacraments.  The  replies  of  Fray  Sebastian  de  Asuncion,  a  Recollect, 
and  of  Antonio  de  San  Prospero,  of  the  Augustinians,  attacked  the 
whole  foundation  of  the  royal  patronage,  claiming  that  the  church 
should  be  given  entire  control  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  According 
to  their  views  the  attention  of  the  governor  should  be  confined  to  ad 
ministrative  affairs  (Expcdiente  dc.  los  provinciates  de  Filipinos,  15  de 
Julio,  1112,  A.  I.,  107-7-6).  As  these  friars  were  the  provincials  of 
their  orders,  their  opinions  are  of  value  in  reflecting  the  ideas  of  the 
religious  in  the  Islands  on  the  subject  of  episcopal  visitation.  These 
opinions  were  contrary  to  the  accepted  practices  and  to  the  ideas  of 
men  of  hipher  standing  in  Spain's  colonial  empire. 

Archbishop  Pardo's  well-known  opposition  to  the  exercise  of  gov 
ernmental  control  on  the  basis  of  the  royal  patronage  gave  him  pre 
eminence  in  these  same  matters. 


Ecclesiastical  Opposition  371 

tion  of  churches  and  monasteries  by  civil  authorities  without 
the  confirmation  of  the  prelate,  alleging  that  such  practices 
were  entirely  illegal.8  In  like  manner,  he  criticises  the  cedillas 
of  October  19,  1756,  and  of  June  24,  1762,  which  bestowed  upon 
the  governor  jurisdiction  as  vicepatron,9  with  the  right  of 
settling  whatever  questions  might  arise.  "But,"  he  writes,  "it 
is  clear  that  the  viceroys,  the  audiencias  and  the  governors  did 
not  have,  nor  could  they  have  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  the 
persons  or  property  of  the  ecclesiastics,  because  in  no  case  can 
power  which  is  delegated  be  greater  than  he  to  whom  it  is 
delegated."10  Thus  does  this  distinguished  writer  attack  the 
foundation  of  the  entire  institution  whereby  Spain  controlled 
the  church  in  her  colonies  during  a  period  of  three  hundred 
years. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  governor  was  the  civil 
head  of  the  church  in  the  colony,  it  would  be  possible  to  fill 
this  chapter  completely  with  quotations  of  laws  which  were 
addressed  to  the  audiencia  in  recognition  of  its  right  of  inter 
vention  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  The  necessity  of  reserving 
space  for  specific  cases  illustrative  of  history  and  practice 
permits  only  a  scanty  summary  of  the  most  important  of  these 
laws.  In  practically  all  these  cases  the  audiencia  participated 
conjointly  with  the  vicepatron.  The  interposition  of  the  audi 
encia  was  authorized  in  the  calling  of  provincial  councils  and 
synods,  and  the  resolutions  of  these  bodies  had  to  be  examined 
by  the  viceroys,  presidents,  and  oidores  to  see  that  they  were  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  royal  patronage.11  The  audi- 


s  Gomez  Zamora,  Regio  patronato,  330   et  scq. 

9  Ibid.,  330-354. 

10 /bid.,  378. 

11  Rcoopilacii'm,  1-8-2,  3,  6.  A  dispute  concerning  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  audiencia  over  the  findings  of  synods  arose  in  1773  and 
again  in  1776,  when  the  Bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia  protested  against 
the  ruling  of  the  audiencia  that  all  the  deliberations  of  a  provincial 
synod  which  had  been  held  in  that  bishopric  should  be  submitted  for 
its  approval.  The  bishop  appealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and 
that  body  approved  the  action  of  the  audiencia  (King  to  the  Audencia, 
October  19,  1776,  A.  I.,  105-2-9). 


372  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

encia  was  empowered  to  examine  all  papal  bulls  and  briefs  and 
to  suspend  those  which  had  not  been  properly  authorized  by 
the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Disputes  between  prelates  and  argu 
ments  of  churchmen  based  on  bulls  and  briefs  were  to  be 
referred  by  the  audiencia  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The 
audiencia  was  authorized  to  enforce  all  properly  authorized 
bulls  and  briefs  and  to  exercise  care  that  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  were  granted  their  proper  jurisdiction  in  accordance  with 
canon  law.12 

The  audiencia  was  authorized  to  enforce  the  law  which  for 
bade  laymen  to  trade  with  priests.  Punishment  in  the  latter 
case  was  not  meted  out  by  that  tribunal,  but  the  offending 
churchmen  were  handed  over  to  the  prelates.13  The  audiencia, 
viceroy,  and  governors  were  commanded  to  exercise  supervision 
over  the  prelates  and  provincials,  receiving  from  the  latter 
annual  reports  on  the  state,  membership,  and  progress  of  the 
religious  orders  and  the  work  performed  by  them,  which  in 
formation  in  turn  was  forwarded  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.1* 
All  possible  assistance  was  to  be  furnished  by  the  audiencia 
and  governor  to  missionaries  remaining  in  the  Philippines  or 
going  to  Japan.115  The  governor  and  audiencia  were  ordered 
to  supervise  closely  the  wrork  of  ecclesiastical  visitors  in  the 
provinces,  exercising  special  care  that  the  natives  were  not  im 
posed  on  or  abused.  The  mdores  were  prohibited  from  inter 
ference  with  the  internal  government  of  the  religious  orders.16 
Members  of  orders  could  not  usually  be  removed  by  their  pro 
vincials  without  the  consent  of  the  vicepatron  and  the  audi 
encia,  the  authority  of  the  latter  extending  to  the  removal  and 
exile  of  offending  priests.17  The  audiencia  was  ordered  to  make 


12  Recopilacion,  1-9-2,  7,  10. 
is  Rccopilacion,  1-13-23. 

1-14-1,   20,   42;    3-14-3. 
1-14-34,  38. 
in  Ibid.,  44,  67. 

IT  This  law  was  nullified  by  the  cedilla  of  August  1,  1795,  which 
forbade  the  intervention  of  the  vicepatron  and  audiencia  in  these 
matters.  See  Recopilacion,  1-6,  note  17,  also  1-14-37. 


Summary  of  Laws  373 

every  possible  effort  to  preserve  harmony  among  the  religious 
and  to  adjust  all  differences  arising  between  the  orders,  or 
within  them.18  The  tribunal  wras  authorized  to  keep  prelates 
from  exceeding  their  authority  in  passing  judgment  on  erring 
priests,  especially  to  see  that  no  punishments  were  imposed 
such  as  would  interfere  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  civil  gov 
ernment.19 

The  following  brief  summary  of  laws  of  the  early  period, 
although  possibly  repeating  data  already  given,  shows  the  ex 
tent  of  the  participation  of  the  audiencia  in  the  regulation  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs  :20 

All  ecclesiastics  holding  office  were  first  to  gain  the  recognition 
of  the  viceroy,  president,  audiencia  or  whatever  authority  might  be 
in  charge  of  the  province. 

A  list  of  the  members  of  each  order  was  to  be  furnished  by 
their  provincial  to  the  governing  authority.  Any  changes  subse 
quently  made  in  the  membership  of  the  orders  had  to  be  reported 
in  the  same  way. 

The  names  of  all  religious  teachers  were  to  be  submitted  to  the 
audieucia,  governor  or  other  authority  in  control,  for  inspection  and 
approval. 

The  audiencia  was  instructed  to  inform  itself  relative  to  the 
efficiency  of  the  clergy  and  of  religious  teachers  working  among  the 
Indians,  and  to  see  that  those  lacking  in  educational  qualifications 
or  in  general  capacity  wTere  not  permitted  to  enter  the  Islands.21 

Notices  of  removals  or  of  new  appointments  made  among  the 
clergy  were  to  be  sent  to  the  governor,  audiencia,  and  to  the  bishop.— 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  under  the  royal  patronage 
extended  to  practically  all  classes  of  churchmen  and  church 
affairs.23  By  the  cedillas  of  August  4,  1574,  and  of  October 
25,  1667,  the  audiencia  acquired  the  right  of  passing  on  the 
credentials  of  prelates  who  came  to  the  Islands.  That  tribunal 


is/bid.,  68. 
^Ibid.,  71,  75. 

20  Ccdula  of  June  1,  1574,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXI,  27-31. 

21  Ccdula  of  November  14,  1603,   Blair  and  Robertson,   XXI,  50-52, 
note. 

22  Royal  order  of  April  6,  1609,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

23  Recopilacion,  1-14 ;   1-7-54. 


374          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

was  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  bishops  and  arch 
bishops  carried  with  them  the  duly  attested  confirmation  of  the 
Council  of  the  Indies,  and  no  prelate  was  allowed  to  leave  the 
Islands  unless  he  had  the  permission  of  the  governor  or  audi 
encia.24  The  tribunal  exercised  a  check  on  the  governor  in  this 
particular  and  saw  to  it  that  in  granting  this  permission  he 
did  not  show  favoritism  or  otherwise  violate  the  laws  of  the 
royal  patronage. 

Two  striking  illustrations  of  the  audiencia's  jurisdiction 
over  the  inspection  of  the  credentials  of  the  prelates  and  higher 
churchmen  occur  in  the  history  of  the  Phillipines.  In  1674, 
Francisco  de  Palou,  a  French  bishop  who  had  been  engaged  in 
missionary  work  in  China,  was  cast  upon  the  shores  of  the 
Philippines.  The  audiencia  immediately  dispatched  orders  for 
his  detention,  and  he  was  not  permitted  to  return  to  his  dis 
trict  on  the  ground  that  his  presence  and  jurisdiction  in  China 
constituted  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  Spain.  China  had 
been  conceded  to  Spain  by  Alexander  VI,  and  by  virtue  of  the 
royal  patronage,  the  right  of  making  ecclesiastical  appointments 
and  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  there  were  prerogatives  belong 
ing  to  the  Spanish  crown.25 

A  similar  case  occurred  in  1704,  when  Archbishop  Touron, 


24  Ibid.,   1-7-1,  36. 

25  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  357-358.     Illustrative  of  this 
same  authority  on  the  part  of  the  audiencia  and  the  Council  of  the 
Indies  was  the  consulta  of  the  latter  tribunal,  enacted  January  22,  1781. 
The  Audiencia  of  Manila  had  called  the  attention  of  the  home  govern 
ment  to  the  fact  that  the  nomination   of  Fray   Manuel   de   Obelar,   a 
Dominican,  to  the  post  of  apostolic  vicar  of  the  province  of  Fukien, 
China,  had  been  irregular  because  it  had  lacked  the  formality  of  pre 
sentation  by  the  Spanish  monarch.     Other  nominations,  namely,  those 
of  1753  and  1759,  were  cited  as  examples  wherein  this  formality  had 
not  been  lacking.     The  Council  of  the  Indies  recommended  to  the  King 
that  the  nomination  should  be  accepted  and  that  an  ayucla  de  costa 
should  be  voted,  but  that  His  Holiness  should  be  notified  through  the 
Spanish  ambassador  in  Rome  that  in  the  future  the  requirements  of 
the  royal  patronage  should  be  observed,  and  that  no  appointments  in 
China,  Spain,  or  in  the  Spanish  colonies  should  be  made  without  the 
consent  of  the  Spanish  monarch   (A.  I.,  105-3-2). 


Reception  of  Papal  Delegate  375 

a  French  delegate  destined  for  China,  arrived  in  Manila.  He 
was  received  by  the  governor  and  audiencia,  as  he  bore  a 
legally  executed  commission  from  the  pope  for  the  visitation  of 
all  the  churches  in  the  Orient,  and  for  the  settlement  of  all 
ecclesiastical  controversies  which  had  arisen  there.  The  royal 
acuerdo  considered  that  the  dispatches  and  credentials  which 
he  carried  were  in  accordance  with  the  law.  Touron  was  ac 
cordingly  permitted  to  set  up  an  ecclesiastical  court.  He  sus 
pended  Archbishop  Camacho  from  his  office  and  freed  from 
prison  some  of  the  worst  criminals  in  the  Islands.  He  ordered 
the  regulars  to  submit  to  diocesan  visitation ;  but  they  refused 
to  obey  him  since  they  had  already  rejected  the  efforts  of  the 
archbishop  to  enforce  the  principle.  The  Council  of  the  Indies 
ultimately  disapproved  of  the  admission  of  this  foreign  ecclesi 
astic  without  the  authorization  of  the  Spanish  government26 
and  as  a  consequence  ordered  the  removal  of  the  governor  and 
senior  oidor,  heavily  fined  the  remaining  magistrates  and  re 
duced  Archbishop  Camacho  to  the  position  of  Bishop  of 
Guadalajara.27 

In  its  joint  capacity  as  assistant  to  the  vicepatron  and  as  a 
high  court  with  jurisdiction  over  ecclesiastical  cases,  the  audi 
encia  settled  disputes  between  rival  claimants  to  positions  of 
authority  in  the  church,  particularly  to  the  position  of  arch 
bishop.  The  law  which  had  been  in  force  up  to  1619  pre- 


26  Re  copilafi<>n,  1-6-31  and  1-14-12,  treat  of  the  admission  of  for 
eign  prelates  and  visitors  to  ecclesiastical  posts  within  the  Spanish 
colonial  empire.  The  latter  law  stipulates,  in  addition,  that  all  bulls 
must  be  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies  before  their  intro 
duction  into  the  Indies. 

2"  Touron  proceeded  to  China,  where  he  continued  his  inspection. 
He  revoked  many  of  the  privileges  of  the  Spanish  friars  there  and 
forced  their  retirement  to  Manila  (consulta  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
on  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  Cardinal  Touron  in  China,  Feb 
ruary  24,  1710,  A.  I.,  68-2-8).  That  his  proceedings  were  recognized 
by  the  Spanish  government  is  shown  by  the  consulla  of  April  21,  1708, 
whereby  4000  pesos  were  voted  to  defray  the  expenses  of  Touron  in  the 
Philippines  and  China.  This  money  was  added  to  the  Philippine  sub 
sidy  in  Mexico  (ibid.). 


376  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

scribed  that  the  ecclesiastical  chapter  should  fill  the  vacancy 
with  a  temporary  incumbent,  but  some  effort  had  already  been 
made  to  have  the  senior  bishop  succeed  to  the  post.  Bishop  Arce 
of  Cebu  was  opposed  to  this  plan  on  the  ground  that  each  pre 
late  had  more  than  he  could  do  in  the  proper  administration  of 
his  own  bishopric.28  Nevertheless  it  may  be  noted  that  on 
January  22,  1630,  Arce  was  made  acting  archbishop  of  the 
metropolitan  see  of  Manila  by  virtue  of  the  acuerdo  of  the 
audiencia  and  the  vicepatron.-9  Aree's  accession  to  the  post  was 
in  accordance  with  a  papal  bull  which  had  been  promulgated 
with  the  king's  approval  at  some  date  between  1619  and  1630. 
There  had  been  a  three-cornered  fight  between  the  ecclesias 
tical  chapter,  the  Bishop  of  Cebu,  and  the  Bishop  of  Nueva 
Segovia,  and  this  conflict  had  been  settled  by  the  acuerdo  in 
favor  of  Arce,  while  the  chapter  appealed  to  the  Council  of 
the  Indies.  When  Guerrero,  the  new  appointee,  arrived,  he 
immediately  laid  claim  to  the  office,  which  Arce  refused  to  sur 
render  on  account  of  an  irregularity  in  the  archbishop's  ap 
pointment.  Arce  appealed  to  the  audiencia,  but  the  tribunal 
refused  to  authorize  any  innovations.30  In  a  statement  to  the 
king,  dated  October  17,  1655,  he  related  that  in  1629  the  gov 
ernor  and  audiencia  had  solicited  that  lie  come  to  Manila  and 
take  the  place  vacated  through  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Serrano.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  audiencia  had 
acted  solely  on  the  basis  of  its  authority  derived  from  the  royal 
patronage,  but  in  settling  the  dispute  among  the  various  ecclesi 
astical  authorities  it  also  acted  judicially.  Guerrero's  creden 
tials  finally  came,  apparently  executed  in  the  proper  form  and 
they  were  referred  to  the  audiencia  by  the  governor.  The 


28  Arce  to  Philip  III,  July  30,  1619,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XVIII, 
238-239. 

-'f  Diaz,  Conquistas.  II,  267,  et  seq.;  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  histori 
cal  view,  I,  259. 

-"Tavora  to  Philip  IV,  July  8,  1632,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXIV, 
224-228. 


Arbitration  of  Ecclesiastical  Disputes  377 

tribunal,  when  it  had  satisfied  itself  that  the  commission  was 
valid,  placed  thereon  the  stamp  of  its  approval  and  accepted 
Guerrero  as  archbishop.  Then  the  latter,  in  the  words  of 
Governor  Corcuera,  presented  himself  "in  the  royal  court  of 
justice  (the  audiencia)  before  which  he  appeared  to  be  pre 
sented  [to  his  see],  he  swore  upon  the  gospels  not  to  interfere 
with  your  Majesty's  jurisdiction,  to  respect  your  royal  patron 
age,  and  to  be  always  your  royal  vassal."31  In  other  words,  he 
took  his  oath  of  office  as  archbishop  in  the  audiencia. 

The  above  may  be  considered  as  a  typical  case  of  the  tempo 
rary  designation  of  a  prelate  for  the  archbishopric  of  Manila 
by  the  audiencia.  To  cite  further  instances  of  a  similar  nature 
would  be  unnecessary.  The  tribunal  continued  to  inspect  the 
credentials  of  bishops  and  archbishops  before  they  were  ad 
mitted  to  their  posts  throughout  the  history  of  the  Islands. 
This  practice  was  followed  even  during  the  period  from  1660 
to  1762  when  the  church  counted  for  more  as  a  political  insti 
tution  than  either  the  audiencia  or  the  governor.32 

The  audiencia  exercised  intervention  in  the  removal  of 
curates  from  their  parishes.33  As  noted  already,  these  removals 
were  made  by  the  vicepatron  upon  the  recommendation  of  the 
prelate  concerned.  Of  course,  when  the  audiencia  was  govern 
ing  ad  interim  it  made  these  removals  itself.  It  also  intervened 
when  the  vieepatron  was  present  on  occasions  when  he  re- 
si  Corcuera  to  Philip  IV,  June  30,  1636,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XXVII,  21. 

32  The  cedukt  of  December  15,  1797,  authorized  the   installation  of 
the  Bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia  as  archbishop  in  the  vacant  see  of  Ma 
nila,  on  the  death  of  the  incumbent,  in  accordance  with  the  require 
ments  of  the  royal  patronage.     On  September   8,  1800,   the  Bishop  of 
Cebu  was  designated  as  archbishop  in  the  same  manner.     The  instal 
lations  were  made  by  the  vicepatron  on  the  strength  of  these  cedillas. 
with   the   understanding  that   the    latter  were   to   be   followed   by   the 
proper  papal  bulls,   executed   in   due   form.     Ceclulas   of  December  15, 
1797.  and  of  September  9,  1800,   A.   I.,  105-2-18. 

33  The  vicepatron  had  a   right  to  do  this   in  conjunction  with  the 
prelate  until  August  1,  1795,  when  authority  was  bestowed  upon  the 
latter  without  the  interference  of  the  civil  government.     Recopilacion, 
1-6-38,  note  17. 


378          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

quested  the  support  of  the  tribunal  or  failed  to  act  himself. 
The  judicial  authority  of  the  audiencia,  exercised  through  its 
entertainment  of  appeals  from  curates  who  had  been  removed, 
will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter. 

A  great  many  reasons  for  removals  were  purely  ecclesiasti 
cal,  such  as  questions  of  the  private  lives  and  conduct  of  priests 
and  friars  and  their  insubordination  and  non-compliance  Avith 
ecclesiastical  or  monastic  rules.  With  these  matters  the  audi 
encia  did  not  concern  itself  unless  deportation  was  involved, 
or  the  offenses  of  the  priests  constituted  crimes  against  the  civil 
government.  There  is  record  of  many  removals  from  curacies 
because  of  infractions  of  the  marriage  laws  by  priests,  such, 
for  instance,  as  uniting  heathen  Chinese  with  Christian 
women,  which  was  a  violation  of  the  pragmatic  law  of  March 
23,  1776.  Such  cases,  and  indeed  all  which  had  to  do  with 
removals  from  curacies  after  1795,  were  settled  by  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  with  appeal  to  the  papal  delegate,  without  the  inter 
vention  of  the  audiencia.34 

The  operation  of  the  removal  of  regulars  for  cause  was 
slightly  different.  Unless  the  regular  was  the  holder  of  a 
parish  and  subject  to  episcopal  visitation,  the  prelate  had  no 
jurisdiction  over  him,  and  neither  the  governor  nor  the  audi 
encia  could  interfere  in  the  matter,  unless  such  intervention 
was  requested  by  the  provincial.33  When  the  deportation  of 


34  Ccdula  of  August  1,  1795,  and  of  September  16,  1803,  A.  I.,  105- 
2-10;  Reoopilacion,  1-6,  note  17. 

•''.->  Recopilacwn,  1-14-71  to  75;  the  entire  title  (14)  of  this  book 
deals  with  the  general  subject  of  the  religious  orders.  The  method  of 
procedure  in  such  cases  may  be  illustrated  by  the  efforts  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  correct  the  abuses  of  Fray  Alonso  Zamudio,  an  Augustin- 
ian,  who  was  in  charge  of  a  parish,  and  who  therefore  was  subject  to 
episcopal  visitation.  He  was  charged  with  immoral  and  vicious  con 
duct.  The  provincial  of  his  order  made  an  investigation  and  reported 
that  the  evidence  brought  against  him  would  warrant  his  prosecu 
tion.  He  recommended  the  removal  of  the  friar,  which,  he  stated, 
he  could  not  himself  bring  about  because  Zamudio  was  acting  as  a 
parish  priest.  The  prorisor  of  the  archbishopric  recommended  the 
banishment  of  Zamudio,  which  act  was  carried  out  by  the  governor  in 


Discipline  of  Ecclesiastics  379 

regulars  not  holding  curacies  was  decreed,  the  consent  of  the 
vicepatron  or  audiencia,  acting  for  him,  was  necessary.  This 
was  usually  given  on  the  recommendation  of  the  provincial, 
and  the  exile  accordingly  became  an  act  of  the  civil  govern 
ment.  The  formal  consent  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  was 
necessary  for  all  deportations  of  this  character,  but  the  com 
plete  exercise  of  this  prerogative  gradually  devolved  upon  the 
vicepatron,  who  notified  the  Council  of  the  act.36 

The  crimes  of  priests  or  ecclesiastics  against  the  law  and 
order  of  the  realm  were  punishable  in  the  same  manner  and  by 
the  same  agency  as  the  simpler  violations  of  ordinary  subjects. 
Attention  has  already  been  given  in  another  part  of  this  treatise 
to  a  case  in  which  the  audiencia,  in  1617,  tried  and  punished 
six  Augustinian  friars  who  had  been  convicted  of  murder.37 
Their  guilt  was  first  ascertained  by  a  preliminary  investigation 
within  the  order,  after  which  they  were  handed  over  to  the 
audiencia. 

The  statement  has  been  made  above  that  the  audiencia  was 
not  allowed  to  interfere  in  the  internal  regime  of  the  convents 
or  monasteries.38  However,  when  the  provincials  of  the  orders, 
were  unable  to  keep  the  friars  in  subordination  they  frequently 
called  upon  the  civil  government  for  support  and  assistance. 


acuerdo  with  the  audiencia.  A  ruego  y  enoargo  was  dispatched  by 
the  tribunal,  soliciting  the  surrender  of  the  friar.  He  was  accord 
ingly  handed  over  to  the  civil  authorities  and  was  incarcerated  in 
Fort  Santiago  until  the  sentence  could  be  executed  (Informacidn  del 
juez-provisor.  y  testimonio  de  los  abusos  del  fraile  Alonso  Zamudio, 
May  27,  HtiO,  A.  I.,  67-6-9). 

se  Recopihtcion.  1-14-71,  72.  An  illustration  of  the  operation  of 
this  sort  of  banishment  may  be  noted  in  the  case  of  three  Augustinian 
friars  whose  deportation  was  requested  by  their  provincial.  The  re 
quest  was  ignored  by  Governor  Anda,  whereupon  the  provincial  wrote 
directly  to  the  court;  consequently  on  April  13,  1777,  the  king  ordered 
the  audiencia  to  see  that  these  three  friars  were  returned  to  Spain; 
Anda  was  advised  to  give  more  attention  in  the  future  to  matters  per 
taining  to  the  royal  patronage  (King  to  the  Audiencia,  April  13,  1777, 
A.  I.,  105-2-9). 

37  This  has  been  discussed  in  Chapter  III  of  this  treatise. 

ss  Recopilacwn,  1-14-67. 


380           Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

This  was  done  in  1715  when  the  Castilian  Eecollects  rebelled 
•against  their  provincial,  incorporated  themselves  into  a  sepa 
rate  chapter,  and  entrenched  themselves  in  the  convent  at 
Bagumbayan,  outside  the  Manila  wall.  Oidor  Torralba,  then 
acting  as  governor  and  vicepatron,  came  to  the  support  of  the 
provincial  upon  appeal.  He  cannonaded  the  recalcitrants,- 
arresting  and  imprisoning  them  on  their  surrender,  and  finally 
banished  their  leaders."9  On  this  same  occasion,  it  may  be 
noted,  the  provincial  solicited  the  aid  of  the  archbishop,  whose 
interference  the  rebellious  friars  had  resisted  as  an  attempt 
at  episcopal  visitation. 

The  disciplinary  jurisdiction  over  priests  and  friars  referred 
to  above  suggests  a  similar  authority  which  the  audiencia  ex 
ercised  over  the  prelates.  Within  the  period  of  one  year  after 
the  installation  of  Archbishop  Guerrero  at  Manila  in  1636,  the 
governor,  with  the  support  of  the  audiencia,  had  banished  this 
same  prelate  and  his  ecclesiastical  provisor,40  condemning  the 
former  to  pay  a  fine  of  2000  ducats.  The  governor  contrived 
also  to  influence  the  judge-conservator41  to  pronounce  a  ban  of 
excommunication  upon  them  both,  in  return  for  a  like  censure 
that  had  already  been  passed  on  the  governor  by  the  prelate.42 
The  banishment  of  Archbishop  Poblete  by  Governor  Salcedo 
and  the  audiencia  prior  to  the  arrest  of  that  governor  by  the 
commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  the  exile  of  Archbishop  Pardo 
in  1684,  and  the  imprisonment  of  Archbishop  de  la  Cuesta  by 
Governor  Bustamante  and  the  audiencia  in  1719,  are  incidents 


39  Concepcion,  Historia  general,  IX,  190;   Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia 
general,  I,  400-401. 

40  "Provisores  and  viaarios  generales  exercise  the  ordinary  ecclesi 
astical  jurisdiction  throughout  the  entire  territory  of  the  diocese  and 
reside  in  the  head  city  of  the  bishopric  or  archbishopric''    (Escriche, 
Diccionario,  II,  453).     The  magistrates  and  other  judicial  functionaries 
of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  will  be  described  at  greater  length  in 
the  succeeding  chapter. 

41  Jucz-con serv<a .dor,   an    ecclesiastical   or  secular    (not   civil)    judge 
named  by  the  pope  with  jurisdiction  or  power  to  defend  a  particular 
church,  monastery  or  convent.   (Escriche,  niccionario.  II,  260). 

42  Nuns  of  St.  Clare  to  King,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVI,  24. 


Magistrates  as  Ecclesiastical  Visitors  381 

in  the  history  of  the  Islands  which  serve  well  as  illustrations 
of  the  disciplinary  and  coercive  jurisdiction  of  the  vicepatron 
and  audiencia  over  the  churchmen.  These  events  need  only 
be  referred  to  here,  as  they  have  already  been  discussed  in  re 
lation  to  other  phases  of  the  history  of  the  audiencia. 

As  visitors  of  the  provinces,  the  old-ores  were  required  to 
inspect  the  ecclesiastical  work  of  the  parish  priests  and  to  note 
their  care  and  treatment  of  the  Indians.43  In  the  exercise  of 
these  duties  they  were  protected  by  a  law  which  forbade  pre 
lates  to  proceed  against  them  with  censures  while  they  were 
carrying  on  such  investigations.  Le  Gentil,  the  noted  French 
traveller,  who  visited  the  Islands  during  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  testified  that  the  oidores  did  not  fulfill 
their  duty  with  great  faithfulness.  Le  Gentil  stated  that  on 
account  of  their  dependence  on  the  hospitality  of  the  priests 
when  travelling  from  place  to  place  in  the  provinces,  the  vis 
itors'  inspections  were  merely  perfunctory  and  of  little  value.44 

The  above  testimony  is  not  corroborated,  however,  by  the 
report  of  Oidor  Francisco  Guerela.  who  was  sent  to  Camarines 
in  1702  to  take  account  of  tribute  and  to  inquire  into  the  state 
of  the  encomiendas.  He  reported  that  in  the  curacies  which 
were  administered  by  the  Franciscans  there  was  an  entire  ab 
sence  of  religious  instruction,  the  natives  were  mistreated,  and 
they  were  permitted  to  continue  in  idolatry,  drunkenness, 
and  superstition.  Neither  the  priests  nor  the  alcaldes  mat/ores 
exerted  any  uplifting  or  civilizing  influence.  The  alcaldes 
mayores,  it  was  alleged,  connived  with  the  priests  to  defraud 
the  natives  by  the  imposition  of  excessive  tribute  and  by  the 
exaction  of  all  sorts  of  fraudulent  ecclesiastical  tithes.  The 
oidor  in  this  case  sought  to  remedy  this  state  of  affairs  by  dis 
patching  reformatory  edicts  against  the  friars,  and  by  posting 
notices  and  copies  of  royal  decrees  and  cedulas  designed  to 


43Recoyilacif>n,   2-31-1,   8;    6-10-8,   9. 

44  Le  Gentil,  in  Blair  and  Robertson.  XXVIII,  218. 


382  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

inform  the  natives  of  their  rights  under  the  law  and  to  warn 
them  against  the  imposture  of  the  friars.  Whereupon  the 
Franciscans  appealed  to  the  Bishop  of  Camarines  and  per 
suaded  him  to  excommunicate  the  oidor  on  the  grounds  that  he 
had  usurped  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  This  appeal  to  the 
papal  delegate  was  in  direct  violation  of  the  ccdula  mentioned 
above,  protecting  such  visitations  against  ecclesiastical  censure. 
The  oidor  appealed  to  the  audiencia  and  that  body  solicited 
the  prelate  by  rue  go  y  encargo  to  remove  his  censures.  The 
audiencia  would  go  no  further,  however,  as  two  of  the  magis 
trates  were  personally  hostile  to  Guerela,  hence  the  oidor  was 
obliged  to  remain  in  the  provinces  at  the  mercy  of  the  friars. 
After  six  months  of  isolation,  Guerela,  who  was  broken  in 
health,  sent  an  appeal  for  aid  to  the  king  on  June  20,  1702. 
This  memorial  embodied  a  full  account  of  his  attempts  to  make 
necessary  reforms  in  the  provinces  subject  to  his  visitation.4-1 
It  was  presented  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  on  October  14, 
1706. 46  Three  observations  might  be  made  from  this  incident. 
First,  there  was  little  vigor,  promptitude,  or  effectiveness  in 
the  Spanish  judicial  system  as  therein  exemplified.  It  took 
four  years  for  this  petition  to  be  presented  to  the  Council  and 
considerably  more  time  for  an  answer  to  be  made.  Secondly, 
this  affair  shows  to  what  extent  petty  spite  and  private  quar 
rels  interfered  with  good  government  and  efficient  administra 
tion.  Thirdly,  it  illustrates  the  fact  that  the  entire  civil  gov 
ernment,  including  the  audiencia,  was  very  much  under  the 
domination  and  influence  of  the  ecclesiastics. 

An  inspection  which  was  similar  to  that  just  described  was 
made  by  Oidor  Jose  Torralba,  in  1713,  in  the  provinces  of 
Albay  and  Cebu.  Torralba  was  unable  to  complete  his  work, 
owing  to  his  recall  to  Manila,  wrhere  he  was  obliged  to  resume 
his  place  in  the  audiencia  on  account  of  the  insufficient  number 


45  Recopilacion,  3-14-28. 

40  Guerela  to  the  Council,  June  20,  1702,  A.  I.,  68-4-12. 


Provincial  Inspections  383 

'of  magistrates  present  in  the  tribunal.  It  seems  that  in  the 
provinces  subject  to  his  visitation,  the  former  charges  of  the 
Franciscans  had  been  turned  over  to  the  seculars,  most  of 
whom  were  natives.  Torralba  reported  that  under  the  careless 
and  incompetent  administration  of  the  parish  priests,  the 
churches  had  gone  to  ruin  and  all  Indian  instruction  had  been 
abandoned.  In  his  report  he  commented  unfavorably  on  the 
stupidity  and  immorality  of  the  native  clergy,  alleging  that  in 
them  lay  one  of  the  causes  of  the  poverty  and  degradation  of 
the  people.  He  recommended  the  restoration  of  the  regulars.47 
Torralba 's  recommendations  were  not  followed.  Either  because 
of  his  hurried  departure  from  the  provinces  where  he  left  his 
work  unfinished,  or  because  of  the  disinclination  or  lack  of 
authority  of  the  audiencia  and  vicepatron,  no  definite  steps 
were  taken  at  this  time  for  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of 
the  people  or  for  the  reform  of  the  clergy. 

That  the  interests  of  the  friars  were  vigorously  and  effec 
tively  championed  at  the  court  is  evidenced  by  the  royal  decree 
of  June  14,  1714,  which  was  dispatched  not  alone  to  the 
Philippines,  but  which  was  made  general  in  Peru  and  New 
Spain.48  It  forbade  the  governors  and  audiencias  using  their 
authority  as  vicepatrons  to  justify  their  interference  with  the 
interior  administration  of  the  convents  and  monasteries  of  the 
orders,  which  it  was  complained  they  were  doing  without 
authorization.  This  decree  particularly  emphasized  the  prin 
ciple  which  has  already  been  set  forth  in  this  treatise  that  the 
vicepatrons  and  audiencias  should  not  concern  themselves 
with  the  discipline  and  punishment  of  friars  not  holding 
curacies.  The  promulgation  of  this  decree  was  brought  about 


47  Report  of  Torralba,  July  20,  1713,  A.   I.,   68-4-16.     Torralba  was 
charged  in  his  residcncia  with  having  received  bribes  from  the  Fran 
ciscans    for    making    this    report,    which    was    favorable    to    them    and 
which  was  designed  to  bring  about  the  restoration  of  the  curacies  to 
the  friars  of  that  order. 

48  Royal  decree  of  February  14,  1713,  A.  I.,  68-4-18. 


384           Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

as  a  result  of  the  efforts  of  the  commissary  of  the  Franciscan 
order  in  Madrid. 

Not  only  were  the  aid-ores  required  to  inspect  the  work  of 
the  parish  priests,  but  the  audiencia,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
royal  patronage,  was  authorized  to  receive,  assist,  and  supervise 
the  ecclesiastical  visitors  who  came  from  Spain  or  Mexico,  or 
were  designated  from  the  ranks  of  the  local  clergy  to  inspect 
the  orders.49  These  visitors  were  also  authorized  to  inspect 
friars  who  were  in  charge  of  parishes,50  and  when  on  these 
tours  of  inspection  they  might  be  accompanied  by  the 
prelate  in  charge  of  the  curacies  retained  by  the  friars  under 
inspection.  The  audiencia  was  to  co-operate  in  all  possible 
ways  with  these  visitors,  and  should  any  question  arise  between 
them  and  a  prelate  over  jurisdiction,  the  tribunal  was  to  do 
everything  possible  to  bring  about  a  harmonious  adjustment 
of  the  points  of  difference.  This  is  illustrated  by  a  case  which 
arose  in  1776,  when  Fray  Joseph  Pereyra  was  given  a  royal 
commission  to  make  a  general  investigation  of  the  Augustinian 
order  in  the  Philippines.  Fiscal  Andrade  of  the  audiencia  de 
manded  that  Pereyra  should  submit  all  his  documents  for  in 
spection  on  the  basis  of  the  royal  patronage  and  other  laws.51 
but  the  audiencia,  under  the  presidency  of  Governor  Anda, 
refused  to  support  the  fiscal.  The  king,  on  April  6,  1778,  re 
buked  the  audiencia  for  its  failure  to  support  the  royal  patron 
age,  citing  two  ccdulas,  those  of  July  2  and  of  October  14, 
1773,  respectively,  in  which  he  had  already  admonished  the 
vicepatroii  in  that  particular.52  The  failure  of  the  audiencia 
and  governor  to  exercise  all  their  prerogatives  in  support  of 
the  royal  patronage  on  these  various  occasions  can  probably 
be  attributed  to  dissensions  within  the  tribunal  and  to  the  cor 
rupting  influence  of  the  church. 


v>  Rccopilacitm.  1-14-42  to  46;    1-7-21  to  31;   1-6-49;    2-15-146  and 
147. 

•r>o  Royal  decree  of  December  31,  1622,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XX,  253. 

•r>i  Rccopilacion.   2-18-18. 

52  King  to  the  Audiencia,  April  6,  1778,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 


Reports  to  C-ourt  385 

The  statement  has  frequently  been  made  in  this  treatise 
that  the  audiencia  served  as  a  connecting  link  between  the 
court  and  the  colony.  It  constituted  a  channel  through  which 
a  large  amount  of  correspondence  was  carried  on,  and  one  of 
the  duties  most  frequently  required  was  that  of  furnishing 
special  and  regular  reports  and  informacioiies53  on  various 
subjects  connected  with  the  church.54  Notwithstanding  the  vast 
number  of  ecclesiastics  present  in  the  colony,  who  could  and 
did  make  special  and  regular  reports,  and  were  indeed  required 
to  make  them,  the  audiencia  was  frequently  called  upon  to 
render  reports  on  precisely  the  same  subjects  as  those  covered 
by  the  churchmen.  In  this  way  points  of  view  other  than  the 
ecclesiastical  were  obtained.  Thus  the  advice  of  magistrates, 
lawyers  and  men  in  active  touch  with  the  government  served 
to  temper  ecclesiastical  opinion  in  the  same  way  that  the  ad 
vice  of  prelates  exercised  an  influence  on  matters  purely  gov 
ernmental.  Taking  into  consideration  their  position  in  the 
colony,  the  oidores  were  better  qualified  to  obtain  and  impart 
information  concerning  the  church  than  most  authorities. 

To  indicate  the  vast  field  of  special  subjects  in  which 
the  oidores  were  required  to  report,  various  instances  may  be 
mentioned.  On  July  1,  1598,  the  king  desired  information  con 
cerning  the  alleged  need  of  a  greater  amount  of  space  on  the 
galleon  for  the  support  of  the  bishopric  of  Nueva  Segovia. 
The  archbishop  and  the  bishop  of  that  diocese  had  both  recom 
mended  that  more  cargo-space  be  given  to  the  church.  The  king 


53  Inf&rnuicion,    a    legally-attested    document    establishing    proof    of 
some  act  or  crime    (Escriche,   Diccionario,   II,   156).     In   the   broader 
sense  an  informacion  was  an  opinion  or  a  body  of  evidence  on  a  special 
topic  drawn  up  and  legally  attested  by  the  proper  authority.      These 
informacioncs  appear  to  have  been  submitted  by  the  audiencia,  or  by 
individual  oidores.  contadores,  oflciales  rccilcs  and  others,  but  in  all 
cases  they  were  legally  drawn  up  and  sworn  to.     An  infonnacion  was 
always  a  special   report,   drawn   up   in  compliance   with   a   request   or 
command  and  is  thus  to  be  distinguished  from  a    regular    yearly     or 
semi-annual  report. 

54  Recopilacion,  2-23-13,  12,  15. 


386          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

desired  to  know  whether,  in  the  opinion  of  the  oidores,  the 
privilege  of  shipping  two  hundred  tons  would  be  sufficient  for 
the  needs  of  the  bishopric  in  question.55  Again,  on  December 
7,  1610,  the  audiencia  was  called  upon  to  forward  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  evidence  bearing  upon  a  dispute  between 
the  natives  of  Quiapo  and  the  Jesuits  over  lands  claimed  by 
the  latter  society.56  On  another  occasion  the  king  requested  of 
the  audiencia  a  report  concerning  the  work,  deserts,  and  finan 
cial  condition  of  the  convent  of  Santa  Clara,  which  had  asked 
for  royal  aid.57  Frequently  the  audiencia  was  called  upon  to 
take  a  census  of  the  number  of  priests,  secular  and  regular, 
in  the  Islands  and  to  report  on  the  size  of  each  order,  the  num 
ber  of  friars  holding  secular  curacies  in  each,  and  the  number 
of  missionaries.58  It  came  to  be  its  regular  duty  to  furnish 
these  reports  at  stated  intervals,  and  when,  for  some  reason, 
it  failed  to  render  them,  a  royal  reprimand  was  forthcoming. 
A  yearly  report  was  also  made  on  the  number  of  friars  enter 
ing  the  Islands,  how  many  had  gone  to  China,  the  number  of 
souls  ministered  to  by  each  order,  how  large  was  each  province, 
and  how  many  people  there  were  in  each  curacy.59 

It  is  interesting  to  know  that  the  churchmen  were  also  held 
responsible  for  this  information  and  that  reports  on  these  same 
subjects  were  required  of  the  prelates  and  provincials.60  It  is 
evident  that  the  report  of  the  audiencia  was  utilized  as  a  check 
to  prevent  misrepresentation  on  the  part  of  the  friars,  espe 
cially  since  it  was  always  the  object  of  each  order  to  prove  that 
it  was  over-worked  and  in  urgent  need  of  more  members.  As 


55  King  to  the  Audiencia,  July  1,  1598,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

56  King  to  the  Audiencia,   December  7,  1610,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XVII,  151-152. 

57  King  to  the  Audiencia,  August  17,  1628,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 
ss  Rccopilacion,  1-14-1. 

so  Ibid.,  1-14-31  to  34,  38,  40,  91,  92;    2-33-11  to  15.     Hundreds  of 
these  reports  appear  in  A.  I.,  105-2-1  to  10. 
eo  Recopilaci('m,  1-14-2,  3,  4. 


Higher  Education  387 

friars  were  sent  to  the  Islands  at  the  royal  expense,61  and  as 
they  were  supported  after  their  arrival  by  the  royal  treasury, 
the  exercise  of  economy  was  always  desirable.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  to  the  interest  of  an  order  to  make  its  require 
ments  and  accomplishments  appear  as  great  as  possible. 

Another  function  which  the  audiencia  came  to  exercise  by 
virtue  of  its  authority  in  behalf  of  the  royal  patronage  was 
that  of  general  supervision  over  the  colleges  and  universities. 
In  the  laws  of  the  Indies  this  duty  was  imposed  upon  the  vice 
roys  and  governors,62  and  nothing  was  said  of  the  authority  of 
the  audiencia  in  that  particular.  According  to  the  laws  of  the 
Indies,  in  fact,  the  audiencia  had  little  jurisdiction  or  authority 
over  colleges,  universities  and  seminaries,  but  as  the  adminis- 
tion  of  these  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  church,  the  audi 
encia  came  to  exercise  much  the  same  authority  over  education 
that  it  did  over  other  church  activities.63  Oidores  and  fiscales 
were  forbidden  to  act  as  rectors,  but  they  might  participate  in 
the  law  examinations  to  satisfy  themselves  whether  the  stand 
ard  of  instruction  in  the  royal  universities  and  colleges  was 
sufficiently  high,  and  whether  the  education,  training  and  abil 
ity  of  candidates  for  the  licentiate's  degree  gave  evidence  of 
their  fitness.64  According  to  the  royal  decree  of  November  27, 
1623,  the  University  of  Santo  Tomas  was  founded  in  the  Philip 
pines  with  the  advice  of  the  governor  and  acuerdo  of  the 
audiencia.65  Here  again  that  tribunal  may  be  seen  in  the  act 


61  Ibid.,    1-14-90,    91,    20.      Missionaries    were    so    badly    needed    in 
the  colonies  in  the  sixteenth  century  that  they  were  sent  free  of  ex 
pense.     The  governors  and  viceroys  were  commanded  to  pay  particular 
attention   to  them,   assisting   and   providing   for  them   in   all  possible 
ways.     "Until  the  members  of  the  different  orders  were  enabled,  by 
their  sufficient  numbers  and   increased   prosperity,  to  establish   them 
selves  in  communities   .  .  .   both  king  and  pope  extended  privileges  and 
protection  to  them  in  order  to  facilitate  the  labors  of  their  calling." 
(Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,   III,   702.) 

62  Reoopilacion,  3-14-4. 
esibid.,  1-22-7. 

™  Ibid.,  19. 

es  ibid.,  1-22-53. 


388  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

of  assuming  non-judicial  functions  which  primarily  belonged  to 
the  governor  through  the  unwillingness  or  inability  of  that 
official  to  act  alone. 

The  audiencia  early  exercised  advisory  powers  in  educa 
tional  affairs.  The  Jesuits  as  early  as  1585  had  requested  per 
mission  to  found  and  establish  a  college  or  seminary  in  Manila, 
and  the  king,  on  January  11,  1587,  requested  of  the  audiencia 
a  report  on  the  general  conduct,  progress  and  accomplishments 
of  the  Jesuit  order,  asking  in  particular  what  benefit  would 
accrue  from  the  establishment  of  a  Jesuit  college  in  Manila. 
The  audiencia,  in  its  report  of  June  25,  1588,  characterized 
their  work  as  very  effective,  the  learning  and  ability  of  their 
personnel  remarkable,  but  in  the  opinion  of  the  oidores  there 
was  scarcely  any  need  of  a  college  in  Manila  at  that  time,  and 
there  were  no  means  of  supporting  one.66 

When  Santo  Tomas  became  a  royal  university  in  1648.  the 
Jesuits  were  obliged  to  sue  in  the  audiencia  for  the  right  to 
continue  the  bestowal  of  academic  degrees.  Their  request  was 
denied  by  the  tribunal,  but  the  decision  was  reversed  by  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  in  1653.67  On  May  3,  1722,  San  Jose  was 
made  a  royal  college  and  was  subjected  to  the  visitation  and 
patronage  of  the  audiencia.  In  1769,  when  the  Jesuits  were 
suppressed,  an  attempt  was  made  to  continue  San  Jose  as  a 
secular  institution  under  the  supervision  of  the  audiencia.  This 
brought  forth  such  determined  opposition  from  the  Dominicans 


fie  Audiencia  to  Felipe  II,  June  25,  1588,  Blair  and  Robertson,  VI, 
318.  The  Jesuits,  on  July  8,  1598,  again  requested  permission  to  be 
stow  the  degrees  of  licentiate  and  doctor,  urging  that  the  distance 
from  Europe  was  so  great  that  the  universities  there  were  inaccessible 
to  students  of  the  Philippines.  At  that  time  the  petition  of  the  Jesuits 
was  not  granted,  but  that  order  succeeded  in  getting  permission  to 
establish  the  college  of  San  Jose  in  1601.  This  institution  was  enabled 
to  maintain  itself  without  royal  aid  until  1767.  Its  chief  support  was 
derived  from  the  immense  wealth  of  the  society  and  from  the  large 
donations  of  individuals. 

«7  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  283-294;   Pastel-Colin, 
cvangclica,  III,  414-418. 


Higher  Education  389 

and  from  the  friends  and  supporters  of  Santo  Tomas  that  on 
June  30,  1778,  a  cedula  was  issued  ordering  the  audiencia  to 
close  San  Jose  and  hand  over  all  students  in  attendance  there 
to  the  archbishop,  so  that  the}"  might  be  placed  in  secular  col 
leges  and  seminaries.08  This  was  done,  and  the  audiencia  ren 
dered  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  a  report  on  the  administra 
tion  of  the  finances  pertaining  to  the  transaction.  The  revenues 
derived  from  all  unsold  properties  belonging  to  the  Jesuits 
were  included  in  the  temporalities,  and  the  income  from  these 
were  transmitted  to  the  royal  treasury.  Subsequently  the 
archbishop  attempted  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  these  Jesuit 
properties  and  funds,  and  to  this  the  audiencia  objected.  In 
1784  the  matter  was  finally  settled  by  the  decree  of  the  king 
in  answer  to  an  appeal  which  had  been  carried  by  the  prelate 
from  the  audiencia  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  He  sustained 
the  audiencia  and  forbade  the  prelate  from  interfering  with 
these  temporalities. 

The  Dominicans  were  more  successful  in  the  maintenance  of 
an  educational  institution.69  On  the  occasion  of  the  extension 
of  the  charter  of  the  Universty  of  Santo  Tomas  on  May  17, 
1680,  the  king  ordered  "my  president  and  the  auditors  of  my 
Audiencia  of  that  city,  and  request  and  charge  the  archbishop 
of  the  city,  the  bishops  of  the  said  islands,  the  ecclesiastical 
and  secular  cabildos,  the  superiors  of  the  orders,  and  any  other 
of  my  judges  and  justices, "  .  .  .  to  acknowledge  the  Uni 
versity  of  Santo  Tomas  as  a  beneficiary  of  the  royal  patronage. 
Its  title  was  formally  extended  on  June  21,  1681,  by  act  of  the 
audiencia.70  The  tribunal  not  only  exercised  the  right  of 


68  Cedula  of  June  30,  1778,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 

69  The   college   of   Santo   Tomas   was   founded   on   August   15,    1619, 
eighteen  years  after  the  foundation  of  the  rival  college  of  the  Jesuits. 
Due  largely  to  the  guiding  influence  and  paternal  care  of  a  number  of 
Dominican  archbishops  it  grew  and  prospered.     It  became  a  royal  uni 
versity   in    1645   and    its   title   was    extended   at   various    times    subse 
quently   (Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  169   [note],  283). 

™  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXVIII,  78-80. 


390          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

patronage  over  the  Dominican  university,  but  also  over  the 
College  of  San  Juan  de  Letran,  a  seminary  for  boys  which  was 
founded  in  1640  and  maintained  by  the  Dominicans  as  an  ad 
junct  to  Santo  Tomas. 

Keports,  recommendations,  and  mformaciones  exist  in  abund 
ance  to  prove  that  the  audiencia  exercised  considerable  influ 
ence  in  the  life  and  history  of  these  institutions.  The  tribunal 
celebrated  acuerdos  to  improve  the  instruction  in  mathematics, 
physics,  law  and  medicine.  It  provided  for  the  examination 
of  students,  passed  on  their  credentials,  made  regulations  for 
the  bestowal  of  degrees  and  decided  upon  the  fitness  of  pros 
pective  teachers.71  It  supervised  the  records  of  these  institu 
tions,  audited  their  finances  and  sent  reports  to  the  king  and 
Council  concerning  the  work  of  the  universities  and  colleges. 
In  its  jurisdiction  and  authority  over  these  educational  institu 
tions  the  audiencia  served  in  behalf  of  the  sovereign  as  his 
royal  tribunal.  These  were  royal  universities,  endowed  with 
special  royal  charters  and  privileges  and  it  was  fitting  that 
they  should  be  controlled  by  the  royal  audiencia  in  the  king's 
name.  In  addition  to  this,  as  they  were  administered  by  the 
church,  the  audiencia  and  the  vicepatron  exercised  joint  control 
over  them,  in  the  name  of  the  royal  patronage  in  the  same  man 
ner  that  they  supervised  other  ecclesiastical  activities. 


71  A  number  of  testimonios  exist  in  A.  I.,  105-2-6  bearing  on  suits 
of  natives  and  Chinese  mestizos  who  aspired  to  enter  the  royal  uni 
versity.  In  later  years  they  were  admitted,  but  these  institutions  were 
primarily  intended  for  the  children  of  Spaniards.  Of  especial  interest 
was  the  suit  brought  in  the  audiencia  by  the  Chinese  mestizo,  Fran 
cisco  de  Borja,  against  the  University  of  Santo  Tomas  for  the  degree 
of  master  of  arts,  which  the  educational  institution  refused  to  grant 
on  account  of  the  nationality  of  the  plaintiff.  The  suit  was  carried 
to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  that  tribunal,  after  requiring  the 
opinion  of  the  royal  fiscal,  declared  in  its  consulta  of  July  17,  1780, 
that  the  laws  of  the  Indies  (RecopiJacion,  1-22-57)  denied  to  mestizos. 
Chinese,  and  mulattoes  the  right  of  studying  in  the  royal  universities, 
but  once  having  qualified,  however,  there  was  nothing  in  the  origin 
or  nature  of  an  infidel  that  should  prevent  his  receiving  his  degree 
(A.  I.,  105-3-1).  Another  question  which  was  deliberated  with  much 
care  was  whether  illegitimate  children  should  be  admitted  as  students 
or  qualified  as  licentiates. 


Church  Finance  391 

As  we  have  already  noted,  the  audiencia  exercised  juris 
diction  over  matters  of  church  finance.  The  most  notable  ex 
amples  of  its  control  may  be  seen  in  the  administration  of 
tithes,72  the  funds  of  temporalities,  obras  pias,  funds  of  the 
Crusade,  and  espolios  of  the  prelates. 


72  Ecclesiastical  tithes  (diezmos),  according  to  Martinez  Alcubilla, 
were  "taxes  upon  the  products  of  the  earth  which  the  producers  paid 
from  the  entire  product  of  their  labor,  without  deduction  of  the  ex 
penses  to  which  they  were  put,  or  consideration  of  the  capital  invested" 
(Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario,  V,  412).  Escriche  defines  the  ecclesi 
astical  tithe  as  "the  part  which  is  paid  by  the  faithful  for  the  mainte 
nance  of  the  ministers  of  the  church,"  usually  consisting  of  a  tenth  of 
their  products,  although  at  times  it  was  less,  varying  with  the  use  and 
custom  of  the  locality  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  638).  This  payment 
was  required  from  merchants,  farmers  and  encomenderos  (Recopilacion, 
1-16-1  to  10).  In  1537  Viceroy  Mendoza  was  directed  to  exact  tithes 
from  the  natives  (Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  666).  This  was 
again  ordered  by  the  ccdulfis  of  July  12,  1778,  and  January  20,  1786 
(A.  I.,  105-2-9).  Subsequently  the  agricultural  estates  of  friars  were 
made  liable  to  the  payment  of  tithes.  As  early  as  1655  the  Jesuits  in 
New  Spain  were  obliged  to  pay  tithes  on  all  crops  and  productions  of 
their  estates  (Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  668). 

The  purpose  to  which  these  funds  were  theoretically  devoted  was  the 
support  and  maintenance  of  the  church.  The  right  of  collecting  and 
administering  them  was  conceded  to  the  crown  by  Pope  Alexander  VI 
in  the  bull  of  November  16,  1501,  in  "full,  absolute  and  irrevocable 
ownership,  with  the  condition  that  the  crown  should  assist  the  church 
with  a  sum  sufficient  for  the  decent  support  of  divine  worship,  its  pre 
lates  and  ministers"  (Recopilacion,  1-16-1  and  23).  The  ccdula  of 
April  29,  1648  reaffirmed  and  amplified  this  bull,  ordering  in  addition 
that  one-third  of  all  money  arising  from  vacant  benefices  should  be  set 
aside  for  the  support  of  the  church,  while  the  residue  should  be  sent 
to  Spain  (ibid.,  1-7-41;  see  also  1-16-28  and  Article  8,  Real  Ordenanza 
de  Intendentcs  de  Buenos  Ayres;  Robertson,  History  of  America.  IV 
[Bk.  viii],  note  XXXII). 

On  February  3,  1541,  Charles  V  prescribed  that  the  tithes  should  be 
divided  into  four  equal  parts,  two  of  which  were  to  go  to  the  prelate 
and  chapter  of  the  diocese,  wnile  the  remaining  two  parts  were  to  be 
further  separated  into  ninths  (novcnos},  of  which  two  were  to  be 
reserved  for  the  crown,  three  for  the  construction  of  churches  and  hos 
pitals,  two  for  salaries  of  curates,  and  the  remaining  two  portions 
were  to  be  set  aside  to  pay  the  dignitaries  and  subalterns  of  the 
diocese  (Recopilaci,on,  1-16-23). 

In  case  the  portion  reserved  for  the  salaries  of  curates  proved  in 
sufficient,  the  royal  treasury  guaranteed  a  yearly  stipend  of  from  one 
hundred  to  a  hundred  and  twenty  pesos  to  each  priest.  This  ccdula. 
was  amended  by  the  regulation  of  March  28,  1620,  which  provided  that 
the  royal  ninths  should  be  taken  from  the  gross  amount  of  tithes  paid 
in  (Recopilacion,  1-16-25).  So  it  developed  that  the  crown  came  to 
assume  entire  jurisdiction  over  the  administration  of  the  tithes,  retain- 


392  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

The  audiencia  was  authorized  to  guard  the  royal  interest  in 
the  matter  of  the  collection  and  the  administration  of  tithes, 
particularly  with  a  view  to  seeing  that  over-ambitious  church 
men  did  not  obtain  more  than  their  share,  and  that  in  the 
collection  of  the  tithes  they  did  not  oppress  the  natives.  The 
special  care  of  the  oidores  was  to 'see  that  tithes  be  not  paid 
directly  to  the  prelates.73  In  fact,  these  funds  were  to  be  ad 
ministered  by  the  civil  government,  and  prelates  were  not  to 
be  allowed  to  interfere  with  their  collection.  No  changes  were 
to  be  made  in  the  authorized  manner  of  collecting  these  funds 
on  the  responsibility  of  colonial  officials.  Recommendations  for 
reform  should  be  made  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies  either  by  the 
prelate  or  by  the  audiencia.74  The  audiencia  was  ordered  to  see 
that  the  proper  division  and  distribution  of  tithes  were  made, 
and  that  the  two-ninths  of  the  gross  sum  collected  was  duly  set 
aside  for  the  crown,  in  accordance  with  the  law.75 

Further  evidence  that  the  audiencia  was  regarded  as  the 
instrument  of  the  royal  will  in  these  matters  is  afforded  by  the 
circumstances  leading  up  to  the  reforms  of  1768  and  1786;  and 
it  should  be  noted  particularly  that  the  king  and  Council  relied 


ing  a  portion  of  these  episcopal  rents  for  non-ecclesiastical  purposes. 
The  royal  share  was  placed  in  the  treasury  and  was  administered  by 
the  ofici-ales  rcales,  leaving  only  seven-ninths  of  the  money  actually 
obtained  to  be  expended  for  the  support  of  the  church.  These  funds 
were  collected  in  the  provinces  by  the  provincial  revenue  officials,  sub 
ject  to  the  supervision  of  the  alcaldes  maywres,  who  were  responsible 
in  turn  for  this  particular  matter  to  an  oidfir  and  a  royal  treasury 
official  of  the  central  government  (Ibid.,  1-16-1,  30). 

These  novenos  were  not  infrequently  farmed  out  in  New  Spain, 
and  at  the  auctions  thereof  frauds  were  as  repeatedly  committed  as 
at  the  sales  of  other  royalties.  Instructions  were  issued  ordering  the 
Audiencia  of  Mexico  to  investigate  the  nature  of  these  transactions. 
In  March,  1728,  the  royal  nowenos  were  leased  for  a  period  of  nine 
years  at.  $19,000  annually.  When  this  lease  expired  they  were  let  again 
for  a  similar  period  at  $20,000  a  year  (Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico, 
III,  666-668  and  note  57);  see  Priestley,  Jose  de  Gulvez,  249-253,  for 
data  on  the  administration  of  tithes  in  New  Spain. 

73  ~Recopilacion,  1-16-11,  3. 

74/6-jd.,     13. 

"•"•  IbirL.  24;  also  Real  Ordcnanza  dc  Intendentcs  de  Nueva  Espann. 
Art.,  193. 


Eccleciastical  Tithes  393 

011  that  tribunal  for  advice  and  assistance  in  the  drafting  and 
execution  of  these  measures.  A  number  of  tentative  laws  and 
proposals  for  changes  in  the  system  of  collection  and  admin 
istration  of  the  tithes  was  sent  to  the  audiencia,  from  time  to 
time,  prior  to  1768,  and  the  magistrates  were  required  to  sub 
mit  opinions  as  to  the  availability  and  applicability  of  the  pro 
posed  measures.  In  1768  a  decree  was  issued  fixing  the  tithe 
at  ten  reales  per  Indian.  Previous  to  that  year  a  number  of 
religious  orders  owning  large  tracts  of  agricultural  land  had 
refused  to  pay  these  taxes,  and  the  audiencia,  by  virtue  of  the 
royal  order  of  September  25,  1768,  was  ordered  to  enforce  the 
law,  which  it  did,  even  proceeding  to  the  seizure  of  the  chattels 
of  the  recalcitrant  friars.70  On  December  11,  1775,  the  audi 
encia  passed  an  ordinance  diminishing  the  tithes  to  be  paid  by 
natives,  mestizos,  Chinese  and  Japanese  by  one-half  real  per 
person.77  On  July  12,  1778,  the  king  asked  the  audiencia  to 
submit  evidence  on  the  question  of  whether  the  law  worked 
any  hardship  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony,  and  whether 
cncomenderos  and  friars  were  paying  their  share.78  At  the 
same  time,  and  on  the  same  date,  the  royal  approval  was  given 
to  the  auto  which  the  audiencia  had  enacted  on  December  11. 
1775.  The  recommendations  of  the  audiencia  were  also  largely 
followed  in  the  decree  of  January  20,  1786,  which  was  merely 
a  repromulgation  of  an  earlier  auto  of  the  audiencia,  which 
ordered  that  tithes  should  not  be  collected  directly  from  the 
Indians  unless  the  latter  were  owners  of  lands.  Otherwise 
thev  were  to  be  collected  from  the  landlords.79 


™  Royal  order  of  September  25,  1768,  A.  I.,  107-5-23;  see  also  Royal 
decree  of  July  9,  1785,  A.  I.,  106-2-15. 

""  Tcstimonios  accompanying  auto  of  December  11,  1775,  A.  I  , 
105-2-9. 

•  sKing  to  the  Audiencia,  July  12,  1778,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 

"» Decree  of  January  20,  1786,  repromulgated  December  16,  1796, 
A.  I.,  105-2-10.  While  the  laws  of  the  Indies  make  no  mention  of  the 
requirement  that  the  natives  should  pay  tithes,  the  above  ctdulas  ex 
pressly  order  it.  This  is  interesting,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Gomez 
Zamora,  in  his  Regio  Patronato  (381  ct  scq.)  says  that  in  the  Philip- 


394          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

By  subsequent  laws  the  audiencia  was  temporarily  deprived 
of  its  jurisdiction  over  tithes.  When  the  Philippine  govern 
ment  was  reorganized  in  1787  by  the  Ordinance  of  Intend- 
ants,  many  of  the  special  commissions  which  had  been  pre 
viously  retained  by  the  magistrates  were  ceded  to  the  superin 
tendent  of  real  hacienda.  The  actual  collection  of  tithes  was 
made  the  duty  of  the  superintendent  by  cedula  of  October  6, 
1792, 80  but  because  of  its  relation  to  the  royal  patronage  the 
audiencia,  in  practice,  fovind  it  convenient  to  retain  control. 
Governor  Aguilar,  who  was  also  superintendent  of  real  haci 
enda,  wrote  to  the  king  on  July  31,  1799, 81  alleging  that  there 
was  no  reason  why  the  audiencia  should  exercise  this  authority, 
when,  by  virtue  of  its  financial  nature,  this  duty  belonged  to 
the  superintendent.  He  stated  that  the  audiencia  had  been 
given  this  jurisdiction  when  there  had  been  no  other  authority 
for  the  collection  of  tithes,  but  that  as  it  was  not  a  contro 
versial  matter,  there  was  no  reason  for  the  continuance  of  this 
condition.  In  the  letter  referred  to  Aguilar  stated  that  he 
had  attempted  to  put  his  interpretation  of  the  law  into  execu 
tion,  but  in  so  doing  had  been  opposed  by  the  audiencia.  The 
answer  to  this  appeal  does  not  appear  in  connection  with  the 
original,  but  the  royal  cedula  of  April  21,  1803,  restored  to  the 
audiencia  jurisdiction  over  the  collection  of  tithes.82 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  with  the  creation  of  the 
superintendency  the  audiencia  was  shorn  of  many  of  the  mis 
cellaneous  functions  with  which  it  had  been  formerlv  endowed. 


pines  the  natives  were  not  called  upon  for  tithes.  Montero  y  Vidal 
(Historia  general.  III,  179)  cites  the  cedula  of  May  23,  1801,  which 
exempted  Indians  from  the  payment  of  tithes. 

so  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia.  general.  III,  179;  also  King  to  the 
Audiencia,  October  6,  1792,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 

si  Aguilar  to  Soler,  July  31,  1799,  A.  I.,  107-5-23. 

S2  On  August  17,  1853,  the  superintendent  of  real  hacienda  of  Manila 
made  an  effort  to  revive  the  payment  of  tithes,  which  practice  had 
become  extinct.  He  ordered  the  religious  provincials  to  present  in  the 
administration  general  de  tributes  lists  of  all  taxable  property  under 
their  jurisdiction  (Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  III,  178). 


The  Ordinance  of  Intendants  395 

The  funds  of  the  temporalities,  however,  did  not  come  under 
this  category.  They  were  greatly  augmented  in  1767  when  the 
Jesuits  were  suppressed,  and  as  was  usual  with  such  miscel 
laneous  and  unclassified  duties,  as  well  as  on  account  of  the 
audiencia's  relation  to  the  royal  patronage,  the  administration 
of  these  funds  came  under  the  charge  of  an  oidor  whose  offi 
cial  title  was  "administrator  of  the  funds  of  the  temporal 
ities."83 

Nevertheless,  the  audiencia's  share  of  direct  control  over 
these  funds  was  still  considerable.  On  January  23,  1803,  a 
cedula  was  issued  ordering  that  the  money  of  the  temporalities 
and  obras  pias  should  be  put  at  the  disposal  of  the  acuerdo  of 
the  audiencia.84  A  report  was  submitted  to  that  tribunal  by 
Superintendent  Aguilar  on  July  20,  1804,  in  accordance  with 
this  cedula.  The  report  of  Aguilar  showed  a  balance  on  hand 
of  151,625  pesos  waiting  to  be  sent  to  Spain  by  the  first  trans 
portation.  In  1809,  the  jurisdiction  of  these  funds  was  com 
pletely  restored  to  the  audiencia,  with  the  provision  that  the 
oidores  who  acted  as  their  administrators  should  receive  a 
three  per  cent  commission.  As  the  funds  were  constantly 
drawn  upon,  and  there  were  no  further  confiscations  of  prop 
erty  of  this  sort,  they  can  be  accounted  as  of  little  importance, 
yielding  practically  no  revenue  from  that  date.  Owing  to  the 
continual  appeals  of  the  government  for  money  with  which  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  putting  down  the  various  insurrections 
from  1808  to  1814  and  subsequently,  the  funds  of  the  tem 
poralities,  like  every  other  peso  that  came  into  the  treasuries 


ss  While  the  temporalities  were  originally  the  endowments  of  the 
sovereign  for  the  support  of  the  clergy,  in  the  Philippines  at  this  time 
they  were  chiefly  derived  from  the  sale  of  jewels,  lands,  live-stock,  and 
other  chattel  properties  of  the  Jesuit  order,  which  had  been  suppressed 
in  1769.  Property  to  the  value  of  2,000,000  pesos  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  government  on  this  occasion.  The  temporalities  did  not  include 
convents,  school  buildings,  colleges,  churches  and  church  furnishings. 
The  latter  were  turned  over  to  the  archbishop  and  the  secular  church. 

si  Cedula  of  January  22,  1803,  A.  I.  107-5-29. 


396  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

of  the   colonies,  were  sent  to  Spain  as  rapidly  as  they   were 
collected.85 

The  audiencia  also  audited  the  accounts  of  the  obras  pias, 
though  its  jurisdiction  over  these  funds  was  often   opposed.80 


*s  A  very  instructive  and  hitherto  unexplored  field  of  investigation 
lies  in  th^  reports  of  the  different  officials  and  bodies  in  the  colonies 
which  were  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  collecting  and  forwarding  money 
to  help  Spain  in  putting  down  the  various  revolts  of  the  late  eighteenth 
and  early  nineteenth  centuries.  We  may  note  the  letter  of  Governor 
Aguilar,  dated  July  20,  1804,  in  which  he  reported  compliance  with  the 
royal  order  of  June  20,  1798,  relative  to  the  raising  of  money  for  the 
purposes  indicated.  He  had  opened  two  public  subscriptions  for  "vol 
untary  offerings"  to  aid  in  putting  down  the  Catalonian  revolt  of  1798. 
In  the  first  subscription,  80,946  pesos  were  raised  and  in  the  second, 
15,397  pesos.  The  Dominicans  alone  gave  5000  pesos,  the  magistrates 
of  the  audiencia,  the  members  of  the  consulado,  the  contadores,  o fid- 
ales,  reales,  obras  pias.  prelates,  temporalties,  the  Compafiia  de  Fili- 
pinas,  the  monte  plo  militar.  the  veteran  soldiers,  religious  orders  and 
other  organizations  and  individuals  each  contributing  their  share. 
Aguilar  reported  that  subscriptions  had  been  opened  in  all  the  prov 
inces  by  the  corregulores,  alcaldes  mnyores  and  intendentcs.  The 
various  provinces  and  districts  contributed  on  this  occasion  as  follows: 
Tondo,  11,059  pesos;  Laguna,  2768  pesos;  Cebu,  300  pesos;  Albay,  85 
pesos;  Capiz,  318  pesos;  Leyte,  21  pesos;  Antique,  4  pesos;  Samar,  1090 
pesos;  Zambales,  41  pesos;  Calamianes,  1607  pesos;  Mindoro,  221  pesos. 
This  money  was  sent  to  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  and  was  forwarded 
to  Spain  by  him  together  with  the  remittances  collected  for  the  same 
purposes  in  that  viceroyalty.  Reports  of  alcaldes  may  ores  show  that 
these  assessments  (contribuciones  voluntarias  or  dircctas,  or  donativos 
voluntarios)  varied  from  half  a  real  from  the  poorest  Indian  to  five 
hundred  pesos  from  the  wealthier  landlords  and  merchants.  In  many 
cases  these  assessments  practically  amounted  to  confiscations  (Aguilar 
to  the  King,  July  20,  1804,  A.  I.,  105-3-23). 

On  'June  18,  1806,  the  king  acknowledged  receipt  of  money  which 
had  been  confiscated  from  the  common  funds  of  the  village  commun 
ities  (King  to  Aguilar,  June  18,  1806,  A.  I.,  105-2-18). 

Hume,  in  his  Modern  Spain  (158),  says  that  in  1809  the  colonies 
contributed  3,000,000  pounds  sterling  for  the  relief  of  the  home  gov 
ernment.  Priestley,  Jose  de  (T<JIVCZ,  370-71,  sheds  some  light  on  the 
matter  of  these  forced  contributions  in  New  Spain. 

ss  Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario,  X,  719.  The  obras  pias  were 
charitable  associations  or  corporations,  usually  under  ecclesiastical 
control,  which  were  founded  and  supported  by  persons  who  contributed 
or  willed  their  money  for  beneficent  objects.  In  Manila  there  were  two 
leading  societies  of  this  character,  the  Santa  Misericordia  and  San  Juan 
de  Dios.  The  former  was  a  branch  of  a  larger  organization  of  the  same 
name,  which  had  originated  in  Portugal,  and  was  quite  generally  estab 
lished  throughout  Spain,  Portugal  and  their  colonies.  A  branch  was 
founded  in  Manila  in  1596,  with  the  object,  as  stated  in  the  articles  of 
establishment,  of  erecting  and  maintaining  a  college  for  orphan  chil 
dren,  the  support  of  the  poor,  and  particularly  of  the  orphans  and 


Temporalities  and  Obras  Pias  397 

The  chief  foundations  of  the  ~obras  pias  in  Manila  were  the 
Santa  Misericordia  and  San  Juan  de  Dios.  The  wealth  and 
power  of  the  Misericordia  became  so  great,87  and  so  well  did  it 
profit  by  the  various  immunities  extended  to  it,  that  by  the 
early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  had  become  the  object 
of  the  distrust  and  envy  of  all  classes  of  Manila  society.  It 
was  chiefly  disliked  because  it  had  been  permitted  to  utilize 
so  much  free  space  on  the  galleon.  Other  inconveniences  had 
arisen  from  its  participation  in  trade,  wherein,  possessed  of  so 
many  advantages,  it  was  enabled  to  derive  profits  and  benefits 
that  were  denied  to  competing  merchants  in  the  colony.  Com 
plaints  were  made  against  it  by  certain  religious  orders,  mer 
chants,  treasury  officials,  oidores,  and  the  governor,  himself.  It 


widows  of  soldiers.  This  society  flourished  from  the  beginning  under 
the  favor  of  certain  governors  and  oidores  and  by  their  assistance  and 
by  that  of  other  friends,  and  through  the  endowment  by  the  govern 
ment  of  a  large  amount  of  free  space  on  the  galleon,  it  became  a 
wealthy  and  powerful  institution.  San  Juan  de  Dios,  which  was  organ 
ized  as  a  brotherhood,  was  established  in  the  Philippines  in  1617  with 
avowed  charitable  purposes.  In  the  ccdula  of  February  10,  1617,  the 
king  ordered  the  audiencia  at  Manila  to  place  the  hospitals  under  the 
care  of  this  brotherhood  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XLVI1,  164-165). 
Though  it  did  not  attain  the  wealth  or  importance  of  the  Misericordia 
and  it  never  had  the  extensive  relations  with  the  government  of  the 
other  society,  it  did  exceedingly  valuable  work  in  the  Islands,  going 
far  toward  accomplishing  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  founded. 

87  By  1660,  the  Misericordia  had  received  in  contributions  the  sum 
of  356,363  pesos.  In  1619,  the  treasury  at  Manila  had  become  so  ex 
hausted  by  the  expenses  involved  in  resisting  the  Dutch  that  Governor 
Fajardo  borrowed  from  the  society  the  sum  of  39,599  pesos.  Later 
Governor  Corcuera  exacted  a  loan  of  104,609  pesos.  In  all,  up  to  1670, 
an  aggregate  of  441,909  pesos  had  been  borrowed  from  this  wealthy 
society  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  government.  In  1762-3  the 
Misericordia  contributed  the  sum  of  195,588  pesos  as  tribute  money 
to  the  British  and  was,  according  to  its  own  accounts,  despoiled  of 
301,597  pesos,  making  a  total  of  506,184  pesos,  and  leaving  a  balance 
of  193,246  pesos  (Procurador  dc  la  Misericordia  de  Manila  al  Rey,  23 
dc  Julio,  n'd.'i,  A.  I.,  106-5-8). 

The  capital  of  the  Misericordia  of  Manila  on  January  31,  1755, 
was  estimated  at  701,477  pesos  (Jnforme  del  Con  tad  or  de  Cuentas,  31  d-e 
Enero,  J?'.5/>,  A.  I.,  106-5-8).  In  the  occupation  of  Manila  by  the 
British  and  in  the  loss  and  despoliation  of  property  suffered  thereby, 
the  Misericordia  received  a  blow  from  which  it  never  entirely  recov 
ered.  By  July  20,  1804,  the  capital  of  the  society  had  dwindled  to 
151,625  pesos  (Aguilar  to  the  King,  July  20,  1804,  A.  I.,  107-5-29). 


398          Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Rayal  Patronage 

was  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  these  that  the  accounts  of 
this  society  should  be  inspected  by  the  government,  and,  in 
accordance  with  these  recommendations,  a  cedula  was  expedited, 
ordering  the  society  to  submit  its  accounts  to  the  audiencia  for 
inspection  and  approval.88 

The  suspicions  of  the  general  public  were  confirmed,  and 
the  popular  distrust  increased  when  the  inspection  of  Oidor 
Calderon  revealed  that  the  finances  of  the  society  had  been 
carelessly  kept,  and  that  the  books  contained  numerous  dis 
crepancies.  The  scrutiny  of  the  oidor  showed  the  existence 
of  a  deficit  of  383,437  pesos;  that  is,  the  records  called  for 
property  in  the  hands  of  the  society  to  the  value  of  that  sum 
which  could  not  be  found.  The  Misericordia,  in  a  series  of  pro 
tests,  accounted  for  the  discrepancies  by  alleging  that  the 
audiencia  had  declared  many  of  its  debtors  bankrupt.  Relief 
from  the  inspection  was  requested  on  the  grounds  that  the 
local  feeling  and  the  prejudice  of  the  oidores  would  cause  them 
to  be  unfair  to  the  society.  It  pleaded  that  the  inspection  should 
be  made  by  the  chief  accountant  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies 
(ccmtador  de  cuentas)  once  in  five  years.  In  this  request  it  was 
supported  by  the  recommendation  of  this  official.89 

On  April  19,  1755,  the  cedula  of  November  9,  1747,  was 
modified  on  the  basis  of  these  protests,  and  in  lieu  of  the 
annual  inspection  of  the  oidor  was  substituted  the  requirement 
that  once  in  three  years  the  Misericordia  should  submit  its  own 
accounts.90  This  brought  forth  a  storm  of  protest  from  the 
residents  of  Manila,  headed  by  Governor  Arandia,  who  went  to 
some  length  to  describe  the  abuses  which  had  arisen  in  the  past 
from  the  unrestricted  liberty  which  the  Misericordia  had  en 
joyed.  He  accused  the  society  of  dishonest  political  practices, 


ss  Cedula  of  November  8,  1747,  with  testimonies  of  previous  cor 
respondence,  A.  I.,  106-5-8. 

89  Informe  del  Contador  de  Cuentas  del  Consejo  de  Indias,  31  de 
Encro  de  1155,  A.  I.,  106-5-8. 

oo  Cedula  of  April  19,  1755,  A.  I.,  106-5-8. 


Inspection  of  O&ras  Pias  399 

interference  with  the  government,  bribery  and  corruption.  He 
said  that  behind  its  commercial  operations  there  existed  a  veiled 
scheme  by  which  the  church  was  seeking  to  monopolize  the 
trade  of  the  Islands.91  The  opposition  of  the  governor  and 
residents  bore  fruit  to  the  extent  that  a  compromise  was  made 
in  the  royal  cedilla  of  February  21,  1759,  which  restored  the 
practice  of  having  oidores  inspect  the  accounts  of  the  Miseri- 
cordia,  though  the  examination  was  to  be  held  only  once  in  five 
years.  This,  of  course,  was  sufficiently  lenient  to  defeat  the 
entire  scheme.  Oidores  were  forbidden  to  interfere  with  the 
property  of  the  society  at  any  other  time  and  in  any  other 
manner.92 

The  Misericordia  maintained  a  stubborn  and  vigorous  re 
sistance  to  the  principle  of  visitation  by  the  audiencia,  but  as 
far  as  may  be  judged  by  the  data  at  hand,  the  law  was  not 
changed  again,  and  the  audiencia  continued  to  exercise  super 
vision.  That  the  audiencia  was  prone  to  overstep  its  authority 
in  the  matter  of  these  inspections  is  shown  by  an  incident 
which  occurred  in  1776-1777.  In  the  regular  quinquennial  in 
spection  of  the  records  of  the  Misericordia  a  number  of  abuses 
were  uncovered.  The  funds  were  found  to  have  been  carelessly 
administered,  and  the 'books  inaccurately  kept,  owing  to  the 
negligence,  incapacity,  and  corruption  of  the  members  to  whom 
the  funds  had  been  entrusted.  Governor  Sarrio,  as  vicepatron, 
appointed  Oidor  Calderon  as  receiver  and  administrator  of 
the  funds,  with  the  charge  that  the  oidor  should  suspend  all 
payments  until  the  accounts  were  straightened  out.  The  Mis 
ericordia  protested  and  on  April  25,  1778,  the  king  ordered  the 
governor  and  audiencia  to  desist  from  further  interference 
with  the  funds  of  the  society,  the  royal  disapproval  being  based 
on  the  cedula  of  February  21,  1759,  which,  while  authorizing 
the  inspection  of  the  books  of  the  society,  forbade  any  minister 


01  Arandla  to  the  King,  July  24,  1757,  A.  I.,  106-5-8. 
92  Cedilla  of  February  21,  1759,  A.  I.,  106-5-8. 


400  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

"to  interfere  with  or  interrupt  said  House  in  the  administra 
tion  or  distribution  of  its  funds."93 

The  cedula  of  February  21,  1759,  was  reaffirmed  on  re 
peated  occasions  when  the  Misericordia  refused  to  submit  its 
books  to  the  audiencia.  The  last  law  touching  upon  this  par 
ticular  question  was  promulgated  on  August  2,  1787,  when  it 
was  decreed  that  the  accounts,  books,  records,  and  work  of  the 
Misericordia  and  its  officials  should  be  subject  to  the  inspection 
of  the  audiencia.94 

Not  only  was  the  opposition  of  the  Misericordia  a  source  of 
dispute  between  that  society  and  the  audiencia,  but  the  matter 
of  financial  inspection  caused  disputes  between  the  audiencia 
and  other  officials  and  departments  of  the  government.  The 
reforms  of  1787  made  trouble  between  the  superintendent  and 
the  audiencia.  Since  this  was  a  financial  matter,  the  former 
claimed  the  right  of  auditing  these  accounts,  which  the  audi- 
eneia  refused  to  concede  for  the  reason  that  it  had  always  had 
supervision  over  these  funds  (when  the  right  was  exercised  by 
any  secular  authority).  The  question  was  definitely  settled  by 
the  cedula  of  January  22,  1803,  which  ordered  that  "the  money 
of  temporalities,  pious  funds,  and  charitable  societies  should 
be  put  at  the  disposal  of  the  acuerdo,  and  that  if  any  matters 
relative  to  those  branches  wrere  then  pending  before  the  super 
intendent,  they  should  be  remitted  at  once  to  the  audiencia.""5 
This  was  accordingly  done  by  Governor  (and  Superintendent) 
Aguilar,9fi  and  after  that  time  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia 
was  no  longer  questioned. 

Shortly  after  the  establishment  of  the  consulado  of  Manila 
in  1769,  a  bitter  dispute  arose  between  that  body  and  the 
audiencia  for  jurisdiction  over  cases  involving  the  commerce  of 


03  King  to  the  Audiencia,  April  25,  1778,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 
i'4  Cedilla  of  August  2,  1787,  A.  I.,  105-2-10. 
"-•Aguilar  to  the  King,  July  20,  1804,  A.  I.,  107-5-29. 
f6  The  capital  of  the  society  was  at  that  time  estimated  at  151,625 
pesos. 


Inspection  of  Obras  Pias  401 

the  Miserieordia.  On  the  basis  of  the  cedilla  of  July  8,  1774, 
the  consulado  claimed  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  all  disputes 
involving  trade  which  arose  between  merchants.  It  advanced 
the  contention  that  in  all  suits  involving  losses  of  galleons 
the  society  should  be  considered  in  the  case  of  an  individual 
merchant.  The  audiencia,  basing  its  claims  on  the  royal  patron 
age,  declared  the  consulado  to  have  exceeded  its  powers,  in 
assuming  the  jurisdiction  described  above,  and  fined  several  of 
its  members.  The  consulado  appealed  the  case,  and  in  reply 
the  king  promulgated  a  cedilla  on  June  7,  1775,  declaring  that 
neither  to  the  audiencia  nor  to  the  consulado  belonged  the 
jurisdiction  over  such  cases,  but  that  they  should  be  tried  in 
first  instance  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.97  The  reasons 
assigned  for  this  decision  were  that  the  consulado  could  not 
try  such  cases  because  merchants  constituted  its  membership 
and  because  the  fiscal  and  two  oidores  also  belonged  to  its 
tribunal.  Neither  the  audiencia  nor  the  consulado,  accordingly, 
could  impartially  try  commercial  suits  between  merchants  and 
the  Miserieordia ;  accordingly  thereafter  all  evidence  should  be 
submitted  to  the  Council  for  special  action. 

The  audiencia  and  the  governor  had  supervision  over 
espolios  and  vacant  benefices.98  When  a  prelate  entered  into 
office  it  was  his  duty  to  file  with  the  fiscal  an  inventory  of  all 
properties  belonging  to  him  at  the  time  of  his  advent  to  the 
diocese.99  On  the  occasion  of  his  death  a  treasury  official  was 


07  King  to  the  Audiencia  and  Consulado,  June  7,  1775,  A.  I.,  105-2-9. 

so  The  term  cspolio  was  applied  to  the  properties  which  archbishops 
and  bishops  left  at  the  time  of  their  death,  such  property  having  accu 
mulated  when  they  were  in  office.  All  possessions  of  deceased  pre 
lates  reverted  to  the  crown  in  accordance  with  the  cedula  of  March  25, 
1620.  The  rents  from  vacant  benefices  accumulated  from  the  time  of 
the  death  of  a  prelate  to  the  appointment  of  another  to  succeed  him 
(Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  735;  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  699). 
The  money  derived  from  espolios  and  vacant  benefices  was  aggregated 
to  the  royal  treasury  for  such  subsequent  distribution  as  appeared 
necessary  for  the  relief  of  cathedrals,  parishes,  colleges,  asylums,  and 
charitable  institutions. 

09  Recopilacion,  1-7-38,  39. 


402  Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

designated  to  estimate  and  administer  the  property  left,  pay 
the  debts  of  the  deceased  churchman,  execute  his  will  with  re 
gard  to  his  property  in  accordance  with  the  law,  and  turn  over 
the  residue  to  the  royal  treasury.  This  process  wras  known  as 
taking  the  espolio. 

The  espolio  of  a  deceased  prelate  was  taken,  according  to 
the  early  laws,  by  an  official  of  the  royal  treasury,  who  was 
designated  by  the  president  for  the  purpose,  and  who  officiated 
under  the  supervision  of  the  audiencia.  The  tribunal  verified 
the  out  as  and  substantiated  the  proceedings  of  the  agent.100 
Whether  any  modifications  in  the  manner  of  collecting,  dis 
tributing  or  accounting  for  the  funds  or  properties  derived 
from  these  espalios  were  made  elsewhere  is  not  clear,  but  in 
the  Philippines  the  abuses  which  arose  in  the  settling  of  these 
ecclesiastical  estates  and  benefices  made  the  personal  interven 
tion  of  the  oidares  necessary  on  a  number  of  occasions.  By 
royal  cedula  of  June  23,  1712,  it  was  ordered  that  in  all  the 
audiencias  of  the  Indies  the  magistrate  next  in  rank  to  the 
senior  oidor  should  be  constituted  as  the 

private  judge,  who,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  oficiales  reales, 
should  have  jurisdiction  over  and  should  proceed  against,  receive 
and  collect  all  the  products  and  rents  of  the  vacant  archbishoprics 
and  bishoprics  until  the  day  on  which  the  new  prelates  should  take 
possession  of  their  offices,  proceeding  with  full  cognizance  ...  to  the 
collection  ...  of  whatever  might  be  due,  .  .  .  with  the  assistance  of 
the  oficiales  reales  who  in  this  matter  are  subject  to  the  royal  au 
diencia.101 

By  this  same  law  the  audiencias,  viceroys,  presidents  and 
tribunals  were  forbidden  to  interfere  with  this  judge  in  the 
execution  of  his  duties,  or  to  impede  the  execution  or  the  law 
in  any  manner  whatsoever.  The  estates  of  prelates  were  thus 
placed  on  a  basis  similar  to  that  occupied  by  the  properties  of 
civilians,  which,  we  have  noted,  were  administered  by  a  special 
magistrate  of  the  audiencia.  This  cedula  also  provided  that  all 


100  ibid.,  37,  40. 

101  Cedula  of  June  24,  1712,  A.  I.,  68-4-17;  Reeopilacion,  1-7,  note  8. 


Direction  of  Espolios  403 

money  left  as  a  residue,  after  the  debts  of  the  prelates  were 
paid,  should  be  sent  to  the  king1  for  distribution. 

In  view  of  the  above-mentioned  law,  the  practice  followed 
in  1715,  on  the  death  of  Bishop  Gorospe  of  Nueva  Segovia, 
seems  to  have  been  a  direct  violation  of  the  royal  command,  and 
somewhat  different  from  the  usual  method  of  settling  the  es 
tates  of  prelates.  As  soon  as  Gorospe  died  at  Magaldan, 
Pangasinan,  the  alcalde  mayor  of  the  province  sent  imme 
diate  notification  to  the  governor  and  audiencia.  The  tribunal, 
in  acuerdo,  on  the  motion  of  the  fiscal,  authorized  the  alcalde 
mayor  and  the  treasury  officials  to  take  the  espolio  of  that 
prelate,  which  order  was  duly  complied  with.102  The  audiencia 
also  dispatched  a  formal  notification  to  Archbishop  de  la 
Cuesta  and  the  metropolitan  chapter,  designating  the  former  as 
the  ecclesiastical  governor  of  the  bishopric.103 

The  significant  feature  of  this  espolio  is  that  it  was  taken 
by  an  official  as  inferior  in  rank  as  an  alcalde  mayor  through 
the  express  authorization  of  the  audiencia,  instead  of  being 
conducted  by  the  second  magistrate  of  the  audiencia  as  the 
law  directed.  It  is  possible  that  the  arrival  of  the  cedula  of 
June  24,  1712,  had  been  delayed,  or  that  this  may  have  been  a 
case,  so  frequent  in  the  Spanish  colonies,  of  compliance  with 
out  obedience.  Certain  it  is  that  the  conditions  of  life  and 
travel  in  the  provinces  were  of  such  a  character  that  an  oidor 
would  have  found  it  more  comfortable  to  remain  in  the  capital 
and  delegate  the  disagreeable'  duties  of  the  espolio  in  a  far- 
distant  province  to  the  resident  alcalde  mayor.  Attention  has 
already  been  called  to  various  complaints  made  by  governors 
and  others  against  the  disinclination  of  the  magistrates  to  sub- 


^2  Auto  de  Espolio  of  Bishop  Gorospe,  May  28,  1715,  A.  I.  68-4-18. 

103  in  the  colonial  bishoprics  the  temporary  successor  of  a  deceased 
prelate  was  usually  designated  by  the  local  diocesan  chapter.  If,  as 
was  the  case  in  the  Philippines,  the  latter  body  were  lacking,  the  arch 
bishop,  by  virtue  of  his  position,  became  temporary  ecclesiastical  gov 
ernor,  with  jurisdiction  over  the  revenues  of  the  diocese.  The  benefice 
was  considered  vacant  until  the  appointment  of  a  regular  bishoc. 


404           Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

mit  to  the  inconveniences  of  provincial  inspections.  Again,  it 
is  very  probable  that  the  time  and  attention  of  the  magistrate 
whose  duty  it  should  have  been  to  take  this  espolio  were  oc 
cupied  with  more  important  judicial  duties.104 

The  citation  or  further  multiplication  of  data  relative  to 
espolios  would  be  monotonous  and  unprofitable.  Sufficient  has 
been  said  already  to  show  the  extensive  participation  of  the 
audiencia  in  the  administration  and  settlement  of  the  estates  of 
prelates  and  the  assignment  and  care  of  vacant  benefices.  It 
may  be  noted,  however,  that  the  audiencia  suffered  little  if  any 
diminution  of  its  authority  over  the  espolio  through  the 
Ordinance  of  Intendants.  That  code  deprived  the  aficiales 
reales  and  mdores  of  the  duty,  formerly  incumbent  on  them,  of 
taking  espolios  and  conferred  it  upon  the  intendants  and  cor- 
regidor-intendants  of  provinces.  However,  it  was  still  required 
that  the  papers  relative  to  the  proceedings  should  be  submitted 


104  A  fairly  typical  example  of  an  espolio  was  that  of  Bishop  Are- 
valo  of  Nueva  Caceres,  rendered  by  the  audiencia  on  July  19,  1759. 
The  total  sum  left  by  that  prelate  was  19,000  pesos.  The  leading  items 
of  the  espolio  were:  costs,  1919  pesos;  bequest  to  College  of  Santo 
Tomas,  2000  pesos;  bequest  to  the  cathedral  of  Nueva  Caceres,  400 
pesos;  bequest  to  the  brother  of  the  deceased,  the  Marquis  of  Monte 
Castro,  1000  pesos.  The  remaining  portion  was  paid  to  creditors  in 
sums  varying  from  20  to  300  pesos,  leaving  something  over  6000  pesos 
for  the  crown  (Auto  de  Eftpolio,  20  de  Julio,  1159,  Audiencia  de  Manila, 
A.  I.,  106-4-16). 

On  June  14,  1774,  the  audiencia  reviewed  the  autos  of  espolio  of  the 
Bishop  of  Cebu,  the  total  of  which  aggregated  11,210  pesos.  The  papers 
were  duly  forwarded  to  the  Contaduria  General,  at  Madrid,  and  were 
approved  by  that  tribunal  on  June  20,  1778  (A.  I.,  105-2-9). 

Owing  to  the  anarchical  conditions  prevailing  at  the  time  of  the 
death  of  Archbishop  Rojo,  his  espolio  had  to  be  postponed  until  June 
26,  1777,  and  the  royal  treasury  received  3078  pesos  therefrom.  The 
prelate  left  a  valuable  library  to  the  College  of  San  Ildefonso  in  the 
city  of  Mexico,  and  13,617  pesos  in  money  to  be  distributed  among  his 
personal  creditors  and  heirs  (Consultas  del  Consejo,  20  de  Marzo,  1718, 
A.  I.,  108-7-1  and  2;  105-3-2). 

The  large  sum  of  12,000  pesos  was  netted  to  the  royal  treasury  by 
the  espolio  of  Bishop  Espeleta  of  Cebu  on  May  6,  1783  (A.  I.,  105-2-10). 
By  way  of  contrast,  the  fact  may  be  noted  that  the  espolio  of  Arch 
bishop  Santos  y  Rufina  yielded  92  pesos.  (Auto  de  Espolio  del  Arzo- 
bispo  Santos  y  Rufina,  20  de  Octubre,  1792,  A.  I.,  105-2-10.) 


Construction  of  Churches  405 

afterward  to  the  audiencia  for  legalization  and  approval.103 
Appeals  and  cases  of  litigation  arising  from  them  were  to  be 
settled  in  the  audiencia.  This  decree  made  little  difference  in 
the  procedure  in  the  Philippines,  as  the  corregidor-intendarits 
were  never  instituted  there,  and  the  oidores  continued  in  the 
settlement  of  these  matters,  subject  to  the  designation  of  the 
superintendent,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  also  governor 
and  president  of  the  audiencia.  The  tribunal  passed,  as  always, 
011  all  acts  of  espolio  and  heard  cases  affecting  them  on  appeal. 
In  this  manner  the  properties  of  the  prelates  were  adminis 
tered  in  a  conservative  and  legal  manner  and  the  interests  of 
the  crown  were  safeguarded. 

The  audiencia  exercised  joint  authority  with  the  vicepatron 
over  questions  relating  to  the  construction  of  churches  and  the 
conservation  of  ecclesiastical  property.  No  monastery,  convent, 
college,  hospital,  or  other  religious  institution  could  be  founded 
without  the  consent  of  the  king,  and  this  permission  was  ob 
tained  through  the  viceroy,  governor,  or  audiencia  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  prelate  of  the  diocese.106  The  laws  of 
the  Indies  conceded  that  matters  which  did  not  admit  of  delay 
could  be  settled  by  the  president  and  audiencia.107  In  fact,  as 
early  as  August  15,  1620,  Governor  Fajardo  acknowiedged 
receipt  of  a  letter  from  the  king  in  wrhich  occurred  the  state 
ment  that  "no  church  or  convent,  not  even  a  chapel,  ought  to 
be,  or  can  be,  founded  unless  concurrent  with  your  permission, 
and  that  of  the  Audiencia."103  It  was  provided  that  all  peti 
tions  of  religious  orders  for  permission  to  construct  convents 
and  monasteries  should  be  referred  to  the  council,  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  audiencia,  but  in  actual  practice,  when 


105  Real  Onlenanza  cle  Intendentes  de  Nueva  Espana,  Articulos  227, 
228,  229. 

ice   Recopilacion,  1-3-1;   1-4-25. 

107 /bid.,  1-2-14. 

108  Fajardo  to  the  King,  August  15,  1620,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIX, 
163. 


406           Audiencia  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

the  advice  of  the  audiencia  was  in  the  affirmative,  the  vice- 
patron  gave  the  desired  consent,  reporting  on  his  action  to  the 
Council  of  the  Indies.  Thus  we  see  that  the  governor  and 
audiencia  in  reality  exercised  complete  authority  in  uncontested 
cases. 

A  large  number  of  communications  written  to  the  audiencia 
by  the  royal  authorities  exist,  illustrating  the  nature  and  extent 
of  the  influence  of  the  audiencia  in  these  matters.  In  1604,  the 
king  learned  that  the  Augustinians  of  Cavite  had  founded  a 
convent  with  no  other  authority  than  that  of  the  governor. 
This  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  royal  patronage  and  the 
audiencia  was  ordered  to  correct  the  abuse,  and  to  see  that  the 
royal  orders  were  obeyed  in  the  future.109  On  another  occa 
sion  the  audiencia  was  ordered  to  correct  certain  abuses  of  the 
Jesuits,  who  had  dispossessed  the  natives  of  their  lands  and  had 
built  various  structures  thereon.  The  lands  were  ordered  to  be 
returned  to  their  rightful  owners  and  the  buildings  destroyed.110 

The  ambitions  of  the  friars  to  construct  monasteries,  con 
vents  and  hospitals,  and  otherwise  to  manifest  their  powers  and 
add  to  their  increasing  strength  had  to  be  checked  frequently. 
The  audiencia  was  called  upon  to  do  this  throughout  the  his 
tory  of  the  Islands.  Possibly  the  best  illustration  of  the 
authority  of  the  audiencia  in  these  matters  may  be  noted  in 
the  part  which  it  played  in  restraining  the  Augustinians  from 
the  further  extension  of  their  influence  during  the  period  from 
1763  to  1778.  The  entire  matter  was  summarized  in  the 
consulta  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  dated  December  10,  1777, 
and  the  cedula  of  April  6,  1778,  with  unfavorable  results  for 
the  Augustinians. 

On  November  17,  1770,  the  provincial  of  this  order  applied 
for  permission  to  construct  a  convent  in  Cavite  and  solicited  an 
appropriation  of  four  thousand  pesos  for  this  purpose.  It  was 


109  King  to  the  Audiencia,  June   (?)   1604,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 
no  King  to  the  Audiencia,  October  30,  1634,  A.  I.,  105-2-1. 


Restraints  on  Religious  Orders  407 

suggested  that  the  money  should  be  supplied  either  by  the  in 
come  from  vacant  benefices  or  from  the  profits  of  the  sale  of  betel 
to  the  natives.  The  provincial  laid  special  claim  to  royal  aid  on 
the  extraordinary  justification  that  the  convent  of  his  order  at 
Imus,  Cavite,  had  been  bombarded  and  destroyed  by  the  British 
in  1763.  On  August  16,  1772,  the  Council  of  the  Indies  referred 
the  matter  to  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  and  the  tribunal,  after  an 
exhaustive  investigation  of  the  subject,  recommended  non-com 
pliance  with  the  provincial's  request.  In  its  report,  the  audi- 
encia  reviewed  the  former  attempts  of  this  order  to  extend  its 
power  and  influence.  On  December  2,  1765,  it  had  tried  to 
obtain  permission  to  construct  a  convent  at  Nagtajan,  which 
the  audiencia  and  Fiscal  Viaiia  frustrated.  The  Augustinians 
tried  again  on  February  20,  1766,  asking  for  permission  to 
build  at  Bagumbayan.  This  plan  the  audiencia  was  also  able 
to  defeat.  On  August  16,  1772,  this  same  order,  impatient  at 
the  delay  of  the  Council  in  answering  its  petition  of  November 
17,  1770,  and  still  persistent,  solicited  permission  from  the  gov 
ernor  alone,  not  alluding  to  the  fact  that  a  petition  of  this  sort 
was  at  that  time  pending  before  the  Council  of  the  Indies. 
This  request  was  considered  in  the  acuerdo  with  unfavorable 
consequences  for  the  Augustinians. 

The  report  of  the  audiencia  was  forwarded  to  the  court  and 
was  there  reviewed  by  Francisco  Leandro  de  Viana,  formerly 
-fiscal  of  the  Audiencia  of  Manila  and  at  that  time  a  member 
of  the  Council.  Viana  recommended  that  not  only  should  the 
desired  permission  be  refused  but  a  rigid  investigation  of  the 
legitimacy  of  titles  to  properties  held  by  the  Augustinians 
should  be  made.  He  regarded  as  especially  reprehensible  the 
deliberate  effort  on  the  part  of  the  provincial  to  obtain  this 
permission  from  the  governor  in  view  of  the  unfavorable  atti 
tude  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies  and  of  the  laws  ordering  that 
licenses  for  the  construction  of  convents  should  be  given  only 
by  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  after  consultation  with  the  pre- 


408  Audienda  and  Church:   The  Royal  Patronage 

late  of  the  ecclesiastical  district  and  with  the  audiencia,  gov 
ernor,  or  viceroy.111  In  this  way,  due  very  largely  to  the  in 
fluence  of  the  audiencia,  the  efforts  of  this  order  to  extend  its 
authority  were  checkmated.  This  may  be  considered  as  a  typi 
cal  case  of  the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  in  behalf  of  the 
royal  patronage. 

It  will  be  noted  in  another  connection  that  the  audiencia 
was  called  upon,  from  1680  to  1720,  partly  as  a  tribunal  of 
justice  and  partly  as  an  agent  of  the  royal  patron,  to  investi 
gate  the  titles  of  the  lands  of  the  friars,  and,  by  this  proceed 
ing,  the  tribunal  deprived  the  orders  of  much  of  the  property 
which  they  had  usurped.112  It  may  also  be  noted  that  an  oidor 
regularly  inspected  the  royal  hospital  at  Manila,113  and  when 
prelates  and  curates  were  transferred  from  one  district  or 
parish  to  another,  property  left  by  them  was  inventoried 
and  taken  under  the  direction  of  the  audiencia.114  These 
measures  were  designed  to  insure  the  security  and  conservation 
of  royal  property. 

In  summary,  it  may  be  said  that  the  audiencia  possessed 
joint  authority  with,  but  not  equal  to  the  vicepatron  in  the 
regulation  and  supervision  of  religious  affairs.  As  a  tribunal, 
and  as  an  agent  of  the  civil  government,  the  audiencia  sup 
ported  and  assisted  the  vicepatron.  At  times,  indeed,  it  acted 
in  his  stead.  We  have  seen  that  the  audiencia  labored  in  the 
interests  of  the  royal  authority  when  it  passed  on  the  acts  of 
provincial  synods  and  councils,  and  it  inspected  bulls  and 
briefs  before  they  were  allowed  to  become  operative  in  the 
colony.  It  sought  always  to  bring  about  a  peaceful  settlement 


in  Recopilacion,  1-3-1,  1-6-2.  The  expediente  covering  this  case  is 
in  A.  I.,  105-3-1.  The  cedula  of  April  6,  1778,  and  testimonios  are  in 
A.  I.,  105-2-1. 

112  See  Cunningham,  "Origin  of  the  friar  lands  question  in  the 
Philippines,"  in  The  American  political  science  review.  X  (August, 
1916)  pp.  465-480. 

us  Recopilacion,  1-4-20. 
1-2-20. 


Assisting  the  Vice-Patron  409 

of  disputes  between  prelates,  curates,  and  religious  orders. 
Acting-  in  the  interests  of  the  civil  government,  the  oidores 
made  inspections  in  the  provinces,  noting  the  work  of  the 
friars  and  parish  priests  in  their  particular  fields,  giving  spe 
cial  attention  to  the  treatment  afforded  to  the  Indians  by  their 
ecclesiastical  protectors.  The  tribunal  acted  as  the  patron  of 
the  royal  colleges  and  universities.  It  regulated  the  adminis 
tration  of  ecclesiastical  finances,  devoting  especial  attention  to 
tithes,  obras  pias  and  cspolios.  And  finally,  as  we  have  just 
noted,  it  was  endowed  with  considerable  authority  in  determin 
ing  the  advisability  of  authorizing  the  construction  of  churches, 
monasteries,  and  convents,  or  of  permitting  the  orders  to  extend 
their  influence  in  various  parts  of  the  colony.  The  intervention 
of  the  audiencia  in  these  matters  wras  recognized  by  the  court  at 
Madrid  and  by  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  Philippines. 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE   AUDIENCIA  AND   THE   CHURCH:   THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL  JURISDICTION 

In  the  same  manner  that  the  audiencia  performed  the 
functions  of  a  civil  court,  so  did  it  exercise  jurisdiction  as  a 
superior  tribunal  or  court  of  appeal  over  prelates,  church  tribu 
nals,  and  ecclesiastical  judges.  It  will  be  our  purpose  in  this 
chapter  to  determine  the  relations  of  the  audiencia  with  the 
various  ecclesiastical  tribunals  and  to  direct  attention  to  the 
occasions  on  which  it  acted  as  a  court,  either  with  original  or 
appellate  jurisdiction  in  ecclesiastical  cases. 

In  this  particular  phase  of  the  investigation  an  effort  will 
be  made  to  distinguish  between  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of 
the  audiencia  and  its  acts  relative  to  the  royal  patronage.  Not 
only  may  this  distinction  be  made  for  conveniences  of  discus 
sion,  but  it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  character  of  the  powers 
and  jurisdiction  exercised  was  widely  different.  When  acting 
as  a  tribunal  of  appeal  over  prelates,  provincials,  and  ecclesi 
astical  courts  the  chief  concern  of  the  audiencia  was  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice.  When  acting  in  defense  of  the  royal 
patronage,  as  noted  in  the  preceding  chapter,  its  authority  was 
primarily  executive  and  administrative,  designed  always  to 
safeguard  the  interests  of  the  civil  government. 

It  is.  of  course,  true  that  all  the  power  exercised  by  the  civil 
government  over  the  church  proceeded  from  authority  invested 
in  the  former  by  the  laws  of  the  royal  patronage.1  Neverthe 
less,  it  must  be  observed  that  there  wrere  times  when  the  audi 
encia  exercised  the  function  of  an  impartial,  disinterested  court, 
with  no  aim  or  object  other  than  that  of  maintaining  simple 


See  Note  2  of  the  preceding  chapter. 


Bases   of  Authority  411 

justice.  It  may  be  conceded,  for  example,  that  the  authority 
which  the  audiencia  exercised  in  the  settlement  of  disputes  be 
tween  religious  orders  and  between  the  prelates  and  the  regu 
lars  partook  of  the  same  judicial  character  as  the  jurisdiction 
which  it  had  in  settling  disputes  between  civil  corporations  and 
individuals.  The  intervention  of  the  audiencia  for  the  protec 
tion  of  the  Indians  from  the  abuses  of  the  churchmen,2  its 
entertainment  of  the  recurso  de  fuerza"  and  its  function  as  a 
court  of  appeals  for  the  protection  of  the  natives  against 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  may  be  said  to  have  constituted  acts  in 
defense  of  the  royal  interests  as  well  as  in  securing  the  ends  of 
common  justice.  In  restraining  church  authorities  from  the  in 
temperate  use  of  the  interdict,4  or  from  a  too  liberal  extension 
of  the  right  of  asylum,5  the  audiencia  was  not  seeking  the  ends 


2  Rccopilacion,  2-16-138. 

s  See  Note  by  A.  P.  Gushing,  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  V,  292.  Escriche 
(Diccionario,  I,  838-9)  defines  fuerza  as  "the  wrong  which  an  eccle 
siastical  judge  does  to  a  party  when  he  assumes  jurisdiction  over  a 
case  which  does  not  belong  to  him,  or  when  he  fails  to  observe  the  rules 
prescribed  by  the  laws  and  canons,  or  when  he  unjustly  denies  appeal." 
Recurso  de  fuerza.  is  denned  as  the  reclamation  to  a  civil  judge,  made 
by  a  person  believing  himself  aggrieved  by  an  ecclesiastical  judge, 
imploring  the  protection  of  the  former  in  order  that  the  fuerza  or 
violence  may  be  terminated  or  undone.  There  are  three  ways  men 
tioned  by  Alcubilla  in  which  an  ecclesiastical  judge  may  commit 
fuerza:  1.  When  he  assumes  jurisdiction  in  a  purely  temporal  case, 
which  by  its  very  nature  is  not  rightfully  subject  to  his  authority. 

2.  When,  by  trying  a  case  whose  jurisdiction  belongs  to  him,  he  fails 
to  observe  the  method  and  form  prescribed  by  the  laws  and  canons. 

3.  When  he   refuses  to   allow   appeals  which   should   be   rightfully   al 
lowed  (Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario.  V,  807). 

-t  Recopilaci'jn,  2-15-148,  149.  The  interdict,  as  defined  by  Escriche 
(Diccionario,  I,  712),  is  a  prohibition,  mandate,  or  censure,  pronounced 
by  an  ecclesiastical  authority  by  which  is  prohibited  the  use  of  cer 
tain  spiritual  privileges  which  are  common  to  all.  The  effect  of  the 
interdict  may  be  to  prohibit  Christian  burial,  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  or  the  celebration  of  divine  services.  Exception  may  be 
made  in  rare  cases  of  baptisms,  confirmation  and  confession  for  the 
dying.  Even  though  the  interdict  may  be  pronounced  it  does  not  pro 
hibit  the  saying  of  mass  in  a  low  voice  behind  closed  doors  and  with 
out  the  ringing  of  bells.  A  priest  who  violates  the  interdict  may  be 
pronounced  "irregular",  but  a  layman  who  does  so  may  incur  the  pen 
alty  of  excommunication  (see  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  under  "Interdict"). 

5  This  refers  to  the  privilege  extended  by  the  church  to  offenders 
against  the  laws  of  the  realm,  who  were  allowed  to  take  refuge  from 


412       Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

of  justice  (though  judicial  proceedings  were  instituted)  so 
much  as  it  was  defending  the  royal  prerogative  and  protecting 
the  officials  of  the  civil  government.  This  may  also  be  said  of 
its  efforts  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  power  by  the  commissary  of 
the  Inquisition.  In  these  last-mentioned  activities,  therefore, 
the  audiencia  may  be  said  to  have  acted  in  defense  of  the  royal 
patronage,  though  in  all  these  cases  its  method  of  procedure 
was  that  of  a  court  of  justice. 

The  church  in  the  Spanish  colonies  had  its  own  judicial 
tribunals  for  the  trial  and  settlement  of  cases  arising  within  it 
which  did  not  concern  the  civil  government.0  The  division  of 


the  civil  authorities  in  a  church  or  convent.  This  practice  was  recog 
nized  by  the  government.  By  a  bull  of  Clement  XIV,  the  right  of 
extending  asylum  was  limited  to  a  few  churches  only,  the  number  of 
these  depending  on  the  population  of  the  town  or  city.  Those  guilty 
of  certain  specified  crimes  of  the  most  heinous  character  were  denied 
the  privilege  of  sanctuary.  The  act  of  sheltering  oneself  under  the 
protection  of  God  was  supposed  to  be  spontaneous  and  not  premedi 
tated.  The  privilege  was  often  abused  by  individual  churchmen 
(Escriche,  Dicclonario,  I,  353). 

fi  A  clarifying  description  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  has  been 
given  by  Escriche.  He  defines  it  as  "the  power  of  the  Church  for  the 
trial  and  adjudication  of  civil  and  criminal  affairs  exercised  either  by 
its  own  right  or  by  concession  of  princes."  This  jurisdiction,  says 
Escriche,  is  of  two  kinds,  inherent  (spiritual)  and  privileged  (tem 
poral).  After  classifying  the  different  cases  which  fall  naturally  under 
each  category,  he  describes  the  tribunals  for  the  interpretation  of 
canon  law.  "The  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,"  he  writes,  "the  inherent, 
as  well  as  the  privileged,  is  exercised,  in  first  instance,  by  the  bishops 
and  archbishops  in  their  respective  dioceses,  in  the  second,  by  the 
metropolitan  with  respect  to  the  suffragans,  and  in  the  third,  by  the 
papal  delegate.  The  bishops  and  archbishops  do  not  exercise  the  juris 
diction  by  themselves  but  by  means  of  their  provisores  or  vicarios. 
These  latter  may  be  either  generates  or  forancos.  .  .  .  The  term 
promisor  or  vicar-general  is  used  to  designate  him  who  exercises  the 
ordinary  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the  entire  territory  of  the  diocese 
and  resides  in  the  episcopal  city  situated  therein;  .  .  .  fordneos 
are  the  others  established  as  delegates  in  certain  parts  of  the  diocese 
in  order  to  facilitate  the  administration  of  justice;  no  appointments 
to  these  offices  may  be  made  without  the  royal  approbation.  The  au 
thority  of  the  provisores  and  vioarios  cease  by  death  of  the  prelate 
from  whom  they  obtained  the  nomination,  and  is  reassumed  by  the 
cabilclo  or  chapter,  scde  vacante,  which  selects  persons  to  succeed  them" 
(Escriche,  Diccionario,  II,  453). 

Escriche  further  describes  this  hierarchy  of  ecclesiastical  judges: 
"The  metropolitans,  then,  are  the  ordinary  judges  of  first  instance  with 


Ecclesiastical  Tribunals  413 

authority  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  courts  and  the 
respective  jurisdictions  of  each  are  described  by  Professor 
Moses,  who  writes: 

The  courts  of  the  civil  government  and  not  the  ecclesiastical  authori 
ties  considered  ...  all  questions  involving  the  limits  of  bishoprics, 
the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  holders  of  benefices,  controversies 
between  ecclesiastical  councils  and  their  bishops  and  archbishops 
concerning  the  administration  of  the  Church,  all  disputes  between 
parish  priests  and  their  parishes,  in  a  word,  all  cases  that  in  any 
manner  touched  the  royal  patronage.  Even  matters  spiritual  and  cases 
between  persons  of  a  privileged  tribunal  were  not  excepted  from 
the  civil  jurisdiction;  but  certain  cases  might  be  brought  before 
the  viceroy,  and,  if  desired,  an  appeal  might  be  taken  from  the 
viceroy's  decision  to  the  audiencia." 


regard  to  the  archbishoprics  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  the  judges 
of  appeal  from  the  suffragans,  and,  accordingly,  they  are  accustomed 
to  appoint,  aside  from  the  prov-isores  or  vicarios,  ordinaries  who  dis 
charge  the  functions  of  judges  of  first  instance.  As  the  obispos  exentos 
are  not  subject  to  a  metropolitan,  but  directly  to  the  holy  see,  recourses 
of  appeals  from  their  decisions  go  to  the  papal  delegate."  The  cases 
of  appeal  from  the  metropolitans  and  other  ecclesiastical  judges  were 
heard  in  third  and  last  instance  by  the  tribunal  known  as  the  rota  of 
the  papal  delegate,  which  was  composed  of  the  nuncio  of  the  pope,  and 
the  ecclesiastical  auditors  appointed  by  the  crown. 

The  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  Philippines  conformed  generally,  in 
organization  and  limits  of  jurisdiction,  to  the  scheme  outlined  in 
the  preceding  paragraphs.  The  three  bishops  of  Nueva  Segovia,  Cama- 
rines,  and  Cebu  had  their  courts  in  the  chief  towns  of  their  respective 
dioceses.  They  were  assisted  by  the  customary  provisores.  Appeals 
were  carried  from  them  to  the  court  of  the  metropolitan  which  was 
located  in  Manila;  this  latter  tribunal  consisted  of  the  archbishop, 
the  vicar-general,  and  a  notary.  Above  this  court  was  thpt  of  the 
papal  delegate  who  tried  cases  of  appeal  from  the  lower  tribunal  in 
accordance  with  canon  law.  In  conformity  with  a  bull  of  Gregory 
XIII,  dated  May  15,  1572,  the  authority  of  the  papal  delegate  in  appeal 
cases  was  final;  "he  might  overrule  and  even  supersede  the  metropoli 
tan,  as  being  the  judge  in  final  appeal."  The  Bishop  of  Camarines 
most  frequently  acted  as  papal  delegate  (Blair  and  Robertson,  XLII, 
27,  Note  4).  Aside  from  these  courts  there  was  that  of  the  commissary 
of  the  Inquisition  whose  jurisdiction  will  be  subsequently  noted. 

Each  order,  also,  had  its  own  judicial  machinery  for  the  settlement 
of  cases  arising  within  it.  The  courts  of  the  orders  were  presided  over 
by  their  provincials,  generals  and  commissaries,  and  were  composed 
of  those  dignitaries  and  other  magistrates  selected  in  accordance  with 
their  own  rules.  Special  investigators  or  visitors  were  also  delegated 
to  try  cases  arising  within  the  orders,  and  to  make  inspections,  ascer 
taining  the  general  character  of  the  work  of  the  orders,  the  conduct 
of  their  dignitaries  and  the  regularity  of  their  administration. 

7  Moses,  South  America  on  the  cv-e  of  emancipation.  126. 


414      Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

It  will  be  our  function  in  this  chapter  to  determine  the  partici 
pation  of  the  civil  courts  in  these  matters. 

The  power  of  intervention  in  ecclesiastical  matters  which 
was  exercised  by  the  civil  tribunals  was  always  a  source  of  dis 
cord  in  the  Philippines.  The  attitude  of  the  churchmen  on  this 
question  is  well  shown  by  a  letter  written  January  20,  1688,  by 
Fray  Alonso  Laudin,  procurator  in  Madrid  for  the  Franciscans 
of  the  Philippines,  in  protest  against  the  encroachments  of 
civil  government.  He  wrote  that 

the  principal  causes  of  trouble  in  the  Philippines  are  the  disagree 
ments  which  continually  exist  between  the  royal  audiencia  and  the 
ecclesiastical  judges;  .  .  .  the  ministers  of  the  royal  audiencia,  by 
virtue  of  the  royal  patronage  of  Your  Majesty  whom  they  represent, 

.  .  .  hold  .  .  .  that  the  audiencia  has  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over 
the  Church  and  over  purely  ecclesiastical  persons,  over  spiritual 
cases  and  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Sacrament,  .  .  .  and  spiritual 
and  territorial  jurisdiction  in  regular  and  secular  parishes. » 

Laudin  described  the  helplessness  of  the  ecclesiastical  judges 
and  the  ineffectiveness  of  their  jurisdiction,  circumscribed  as 
it  was  by  that  of  the  civil  magistrates.  He  stated  that  all  the 
judicial  acts  of  the  ecclesiastical  ordinaries  were  rendered  null 
by  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia  and  that  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  were  reduced  to  such  a  condition  that  they  did  not 
know  where  to  turn  for  relief  or  remedy,  as  even  the  papal 
decrees  were  rendered  ineffectual  by  the  encroachments  of  the 
civil  jurisdiction.  He  stated  that  "the  ecclesiastical  judges 
see  in  all  this  a  meddling  and  interference  with  the  ecclesi 
astical  jurisdiction,  which  has  always  been  allowed,  but  they 
cannot  hereafter  give  fulfillment  to  the  provisions  of  the  audi 
encia,  even  at  the  risk  of  expulsion  from  their  districts." 
Laudin  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  laws  had  been  misinter 
preted  by  the  civil  officials  and  that  the  king  had  never  in 
tended  that  the  churchmen  should  be  so  entirely  shorn  of  their 
powers.  He  concluded  his  appeal  with  the  solicitation  that 


s  Carta  cle  Fr.  Francisco  de  Laudin     .     .     .     al  Cansejo  de  Indias, 
20  dc  Encro,  1668,  A.  I.,  68-1-44. 


Church  Courts  415 

such  laws  should  be  made  as  would  determine  the  questions  at 
issue  and  bring  about  harmony  between  church  and  state  in 
the  Islands.  This  should  be  done,  he  said,  "in  order  that  each 
may  be  caused  to  see  clearly  the  duties  and  jurisdiction  which 
belongs  to  him  and  that  each  may  freely  make  use  of  his  own 
powers  and  prerogatives,  and  thus  avoid  suits  and  other  dis 
agreements." 

The  laws  of  the  Indies  prescribed  that  the  most  harmonious 
relations  should  prevail  between  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
magistrates.  The  audiencia  was  commanded  to  aid  the  prelates 
and  ecclesiastical  magistrates  in  the  exercise  of  their  jurisdic 
tion,  neither  interfering  with  them  nor  permitting  them  to  be 
molested  by  other  civil  authorities.9  These  laws,  like  those  of 
the  royal  patronage,  not  only  gave  to  the  civil  government  a 
commanding  position  with  relation  to  the  church,  but  they 
established  the  magistrates  as  the  supervisors  and  guardians  of 
the  church  courts. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  audiencia,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
guard  strictly  the  prerogatives  of  the  civil  magistrates,  and,  in 
fact,  those  of  all  officials  of  the  government,  and  not  to  allow 
the  ecclesiastics  to  infringe  on  their  jurisdiction  through  acts 
of  fucrzci,  interdicts,  or  by  any  other  illegal  means.10  The 
ecclesiastical  courts  were  forbidden  to  try  laymen  or  those 
subject  in  first  instance  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts. 
They  were  forbidden  to  imprison  private  subjects,  or  embargo 
or  sell  their  property  without  first  seeking  the  consent  and  co 
operation  of  the  secular  arm.11  They  were  forbidden  to  try 
any  cases  except  those  involving  the  church,  and  they  could 
not,  without  the  aid  of  the  civil  authorities,  impose  fines  or 
condemn  persons  to  labor.12  In  general,  they  were  solicited  to 


a  Recopilacion,    1-7-54;     2-15-150;     3-1-4;     Escriche,     Diccionario, 
II,  453. 

10  Recopilacion,  1-10-1,  2. 

n  Escriche,  Diccionario,  II,  453. 

12  Pecopilacion,  1-10-4,  6,  7,  12;    1-7-12. 


416       Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

work  in  harmony  with  the  audiencia,  and  to  give  all  possible 
assistance  to  that  body.13  Wherein  doubt  existed  or  where 
there  was  reason  to  believe  that  an  action  might  constitute  an 
interference  with  the  civil  prerogative,  the  ecclesiastical  judges 
were  ordered  to  ask  the  advice  of  the  secular  authorities.  The 
ecclesiastical  and  secular  magistrates  were  enjoined  to  aid  each 
other  actively  when  occasion  demanded,  the  prelates  support 
ing  the  audiencia,  and  the  latter  dispatching  provisions  to  its 
magistrates  and  subdelegates  in  support  of  the  ecclesiastical 
judges  and  tribunals.14 

The  laws  cited  above  did  not  become  effective  suddenly, 
but  were  evolved  through  a  long  period  of  dissension  and  dis 
pute  between  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  civil  authorities.  Before 
the  audiencia  was  established  in  the  Islands,  the  parish  priests, 
friars,  and  ecclesiastical  ordinaries  in  many  cases  exercised  the 
duties  of  local  judges  in  both  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
spheres.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  church  ren 
dered  very  efficient  service  in  this  particular,  especially  under 
the  leadership  of  Bishop  Salazar.15 

The  surrender  of  their  prerogatives  by  the  ecclesiastics  was 
gradually  though  reluctantly  made  as  the  civil  courts  became 
more  firmly  established  in  the  Islands.  At  first,  the  entire 
clergy,  with  few  exceptions,  from  the  bishop  to  the  most  iso 
lated  parish  priest,  opposed  the  change,  and  regarded  the 
assumption  of  their  former  powers  by  the  civil  authorities  as 
unauthorized  usurpation.16  It  was  with  great  difficulty  that 


11. 

2-15-153;    1-10-13;   3-1-3. 

is  As  an  example  of  this  we  may  refer  to  the  work  of  the  Augustin- 
ians  in  bringing  to  the  light  of  judicial  scrutiny  the  abuses  of  certain 
encomenderos  against  the  Indians  of  Mindanao.  This  was  in  1581, 
before  the  audiencia  was  established.  The  offending  encomenderos 
were  brought  to  Manila  and  tried  by  Bishop  Salazar,  who  temporarily 
deprived  them  of  their  holdings  and  sentenced  them  to  imprisonment 
and  fines  (Governor  to  the  King  [day  and  month  not  given],  A.  I., 
67-6-6). 

is  The  opposition  of  Salazar  to  what  he  termed  the  encroachment 
of  the  civil  jurisdiction  was  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  royal 


The  Growth  of  Authority  417 

the  churchmen  were  able  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  con 
ditions.  They  were  required  frequently  to  aid  the  civil  author 
ities  in  the  apprehension  of  criminals  and  in  the  obtaining  of 
testimony,  thus  co-operating  generally  in  the  administration  of 
justice.17  A  noteworthy  conflict  arose  when  the  audiencia 
summoned  Bishop  Salazar  before  it  to  testify  as  an  ordinary 
witness,  and  to  explain  his  own  actions  011  various  occasions, 
in  retarding  the  work  of  the  civil  courts.  These  summonses  he 
regarded  as  detracting  from  his  ecclesiastical  immunity.  Sub 
sequently,  the  audiencia  was  admonished  that  on  no  occasion 
should  churchmen  be  called  to  act  as  witnesses.18  So  it  came 
about  that  although  the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  wras  pre 
scribed  by  the  laws  of  the  Indies  and  admitted  elsewhere  in 
the  Philippines,  owing  to  the  strength  of  the  ecclesiastical 
organization,  and  its  former  prominence  in  affairs  of  govern 
ment,  the  assumption  of  its  legal  power  by  the  audiencia  was 
necessarily  gradual.  Nevertheless,  the  tribunal  ultimately  at 
tained  extensive  authority  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  an  analysis 
of  which  will  now  be  made. 


patronage  did  not  extend  to  tribes  which  lived  in  an  uncivilized  and 
savage  state.  He  contended  that  the  pope  had  not 'conceded  this,  con 
sequently,  as  bishop,  he  had  entire  jurisdiction  without  interference 
from  the  audiencia  or  governor  over  the  Mohammedans  (as  he  termed 
all  non-Christians)  and  the  Chinese  (A.  I.,  1-1-3/25). 

"  CaUUo  de  Manila  to  the  King,  A.  I.,  68-1-35. 

is  Fajardo  to  Felipe  III,  August  15,  1620,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XIX, 
155.  The  pendulum  seems,  however,  to  have  swung  in  the  other  direc 
tion  at  times.  In  1604,  the  audiencia  was  charged  with  having  tried 
members  of  religious  orders  in  absentia  without  giving  them  a  chance 
to  summon  witnesses  or  otherwise  to  defend  themselves  (King  to 
Audiencia,  October  30,  1604,  A.  I.,  105-2-1).  That  the  audiencia  did 
not  always  have  power  to  discipline  the  friars  for  infractions  of  the 
royal  laws  in  1626,  is  attested  by  the  case  of  an  Augustinian  who  led 
an  assault  on  an  alcalde  mayor  in  Batangas,  destroyed  his  house,  mal 
treated  his  person,  and,  in  the  presence  of  the  natives,  publicly  ac 
complished  his  disgrace.  The  king  demanded  from  the  audiencia  a 
statement  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case  so  that  he  and  the  Council  might 
take  proper  steps  for  the  punishment  of  the  offending  religious  and  the 
protection  of  His  Majesty's  servants  in  the  future  (King  to  Audiencia, 
May  21,  1623,  A.  I.,  105-2-1).  The  audiencia  conducted  an  investiga 
tion  and  forwarded  the  papers  relative  to  the  case  to  the  court  for 
final  action.  See  Chapter  X,  note  35. 


418       Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

The  audiencia  exercised  jurisdiction  as  a  high  court  of  ap 
peal  over  suits  to  which  the  religious  orders  were  parties.  Most 
of  these  cases  originated  in  misunderstandings  or  contentions 
over  jurisdiction,  titles  to  land,  and  over  the  claims  relating  to 
occupation  of  provinces  under  the  royal  patronage,  which  the 
various  orders  advanced.  Most  frequent  of  all  were  the  suits 
between  the  orders,  as  to  jurisdiction  over  provinces.  An  ex 
ample  of  this  is  furnished  by  the  contention  which  arose  in 
1736  between  the  Jesuits  and  the  Recollects  for  the  exclusive 
right  to  minister  in  Mindanao.  Another  case  of  a  similar 
nature  was  the  adjudication  of  a  dispute  between  the  Recollects 
and  the  Dominicans  for  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  the  province 
of  Zambales,  as  a  result  of  which  the  Recollects  were  finally 
ordered  to  confine  their  missionary  activities  to  Mindoro.19 
Another  case  was  the  dispute  between  the  Franciscans  and  the 
Observant  friars.  A  large  number  of  the  latter  arrived  in  the 
Islands  in  1648  with  letters  from  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain. 
They  were  at  once  given  territory  which  had  been  previously 
assigned  to  the  Franciscans.  On  the  basis  of  a  brief  of  Urban 
VIII,  prohibiting  the  occupation  of  the  same  province  by  two 
different  orders,  the  Franciscans  brought  suit  in  the  audiencia 
with  the  result  that  the  newcomers  were  not  only  dispossessed 
of  the  province  that  had  been  assigned  to  them,  but  their 
patents  and  briefs  were  cancelled  on  the  grounds  that  they 
were  not  properly  authorized  by  the  Council  of  the  Indies.20 

Reference  was  made  in  the  last  chapter  to  the  suits  which 
occurred  between  the  Jesuits  and  Dominicans,  the  two  orders 
most  extensively  interested  in  higher  education,  for  the  right 
to  maintain  universities  in  Manila.  The  greater  number  of 
these  disputes,  in  fact  all  of  them,  seem  to  have  been  based  on 
the  rivalry  of  their  two  colleges  and  on  their  zeal  for  royal 


ID  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVIIi,  314-15;  see  XLI,  22-25,  134,  231-4, 
239,  255. 

20  Montero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  283-284. 


Suits  Between  Orders  419 

favor  and  patronage.  When  Santo  Tomas  became  a  royal 
university  in  1648,  and  was  empowered  to  grant  degrees  as 
such,  the  Jesuits  brought  suit  in  the  audieiicia  for  the  right 
to  confer  honors  of  a  like  character  in  their  college  of  San 
Jose.  The  audiencia  denied  their  petition ;  the  case  was  ap 
pealed  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  and  the  higher  authority 
decided  that  both  institutions  should  enjoy  equally  the  privilege 
of  conferring  scholastic  honors.21  The  rivalry  and  bitter  feeling 
between  these  two  orders  did  not  cease  with  this  settlement,  but 
in  1683  the  Dominicans  again  brought  suit  in  the  audiencia, 
seeking  to  limit  the  educational  activities  of  the  Jesuits.  The 
matter  was  again  carried  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Al 
though  the  decision  was  made  in  favor  of  the  Jesuits,  the  dis 
agreements  between  the  two  .orders,  the  charges  and  counter 
charges,  and  the  influence  of  Archbishop  Pardo,  a  Dominican, 
in  behalf  of  his  own  order,  wrent  far  beyond  the  authority  of 
the  audiencia,  whose  efforts  to  restrain  them  were  entirely 
ineffectual.22 

Even  the  natives  themselves,  at  times,  went  so  far  as  to  sue 
the  religious  orders  in  the  audiencia.  This  was  done  in  1738 
when  the  mestizos  of  Santa  Cruz  brought  suit  against  the 
Jesuits,  because  the  latter  had  sought  to  make  the  residents  of 
Santa  Cruz  pay  for  certain  improvements  in  the  parishes  of  that 
district.  These  improvements  had  been  authorized  by  the  Jesuits, 
and  from  them  the  society  had  derived  great  benefit,  while  the 
residents  had  derived  no  particular  good  from  them.23  In  1737, 
on  complaint  of  the  natives,  an  investigation  was  conducted  by 
Oidor  Calderon  which  put  a  check  upon  certain  transactions 
of  the  Jesuits  in  the  province  of  Batangas.  It  was  proved  that 


21  Letter  of  Fray  Miguel  de  Solano,  May  7,  1753,  A.  I.,  67-6-4. 

22  Orellana  to  Carlos   II,   February   24,   1683,   Blair  and   Robertson, 
XXXVIII,  81-85. 

23  Concepcion,  Historia  general,  IX,  107.    There  are  records  of  many 
suits  of  this  character  throughout  the  history  of  Juan  de  la  Concepcion. 
The  original  documents  relating  thereto  are  to  be  found  in  A.  I.,  105- 
3-1  to  10.     See  also  A.  I.,  67-6-3,  67-6-9  to  11. 


420       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

they  had  collected  rents  repeatedly  from  the  Indians  for  lands 
to  which  they  had  no  title. 

The  most  significant  and  decisive  judicial  authority  which 
the  audiencia  exercised  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  that  which 
was  productive  of  more  conflicts  and  opposition  on  the  part  of 
the  church  than  any  other  cause,  was  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
tribunal  over  the  secular  church  courts,  at  the  head  of  which 
was  the  metropolitan  tribunal  of  the  archbishop.  The  method 
of  intervention  most  frequently  followed  in  cases  appealed 
from  the  archbishop  was  by  the  entertainment  of  the  recurso 
de  fuerza.2*  In  this  way  the  civil  jurisdiction,  acting  through 
the  audiencia,  could  intervene  for  its  own  protection,  and  by 
means  of  this  special  procedure  that  tribunal  actually  did  re 
strain  the  ecclesiastical  judges  more  frequently  and  effectively 
in  important  cases  than  in  any  other  way.  It  was  on  the 
grounds  of  fuerza  that  the  audiencia  justified  its  action  in 
practically  all  cases  of  interference  with  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
church  courts. 

Cases  of  fuerza  were  those  which  came  to  the  audiencia 
through  the  abuse  of  their  judicial  powers  by  prelates  or 
ecclesiastical  judges;  cases,  literally,  in  which  the  latter  had 
usurped  or  trespassed  the  authority  of  the  civil  courts 
or  government.25  The  execution  of  the  decision  of  an  ecclesi 
astical  judge  could  be  suspended  by  an  edict  of  the  audiencia 
on  the  grounds  of  fuerza,  while  the  case  was  being  investigated 
by  that  tribunal.26  The  civil  government  usually  took  the 
initiative  in  these  appeals,  but  there  were  occasions  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  Islands  in  which  ecclesiastical  authorities  and 
tribunals  interposed  recursos  de  fuerza  against  the  archbishop. 
In  dealing  with  these  cases  the  audiencia  first  ascertained 
whether  fuerza  had  been  committed  and  then,  if  the  results 


-'•*  See  note  3  of  this  chapter. 
25  Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario.  V,  807. 
,  1-10-10;    2-15-136. 


Recursos  de  Fuerza  421 

of  the  investigation  were  affirmative,  the  tribunal  was  empow 
ered  to  raise  the  fuerza  (alzar  or  quita-r  la  fuerza}-'  and  place 
limitations  upon  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  order  to  pre 
vent  future  abuse  of  power.28  The  audiencia  was  without 
authority  to  fine  prelates,  bishops,  or  ecclesiastical  judges,  but 
it  had  sufficient  jurisdiction  to  remedy  excesses  and  restore 
conditions  to  their  former  state.  The  tribunal  was  urged  to 
use  the  utmost  discretion  in  dispossessing  offending  prelates 
and  judges  of  their  benefices  or  positions,29  as  a  punishment  for 
fuerza,  and  not  to  proceed  to  such  lengths  except  in  excep 
tional  cases,  wherein  the  strictest  measures  \vere  necessary.  On 
such  occasions  the  audiencia  might  exile  the  offending  ecclesi 
astic,  giving  account  of  its  act  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.30 
All  proceedings  of  this  nature  had  to  be  carried  on  secretly 
and  with  the  greatest  possible  dispatch  and  brevity,31  and  all 
churchmen  who  were  deprived  of  their  benefices  through  the  re 
cur  so  de  fuerza  had  the  privilege  of  an  appeal  to  the  Council 
of  the  Indies.02 

In  the  treatment  of  cases  of  fuerza  an  informal  judicial 
hearing  was  given ;  the  spirit  of  the  proceeding  was  supposed 
to  be  that  of  a  harmonious  investigation,  in  which  both  sides, 
ecclesiastical  and  civil,  were  mutually  and  equally  concerned 
in  the  solution  of  a  given  problem,  and  in  ascertaining  wherein 
error  had  been  committed.  The  object  of  this  proceeding  was 
said  to  be  the  furtherance  of  the  interests  of  the  crown,  the 
salvation  of  souls  and  the  spread  of  the  benevolent  influence  of 
the  church.  That  the  spirit  of  peace  and  harmony  failed  to 
manifest  itself  at  many  of  these  investigations,  is  shown  by  the 


--  Alzar  or  guitar  Z«  fuerza  was  the  act  on  the  part  of  a  royal  tri 
bunal  of  abrogating,  annulling,  or  reforming  the  effects  of  violence 
committed  by  aft  ecclesiastical  judge. — Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  839. 

28  Recopilacion,  2-15-134,  135. 

-•oj&id,,  2-15-143. 

50  lUd.,  144. 

.'.i  ma.,  152  and  142. 
2-2-4. 


422       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

bitter  contests  which  arose  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
judges  as  results  of  the  entertainment  of  the  recur  so  de  fuerza. 
The  spiritual  authorities  alleged  on  these  occasions  that  they 
regarded  the  restraining  action  of  the  government  as  presump 
tion,  unauthorized  by  ecclesiastical  canons. 

In  the  well-known  Pardo  controversy  (1683-1689),  refer 
ences  to  which  may  be  found  in  any  history  of  the  Philippines, 
there  occurred  many  occasions  on  which  the  audiencia  was 
obliged  to  avail  itself  of  the  recurso  de  fuerza.  By  this  means 
the  audiencia  sought  to  restrain  Archbishop  Pardo  from  usurp 
ing  the  civil  jurisdiction  and  that  of  the  religious  orders  and 
of  the  metropolitan  chapter.  Interference  with  these  orders 
was  in  violation  of  the  royal  patronage,  the  ultimate  authority 
over  them  being  the  patron  and  not  the  archbishop.  Such 
action,  therefore,  became  a  civil  offense,  punishable  by  the  civil 
tribunals,  the  highest  of  which  and  the  one  properly  equipped 
to  deal  with  such  cases,  was  the  audiencia.  It  will  be  noted 
that  Pardo  paid  the  penalty  of  exile  for  repeatedly  ignoring 
the  audiencia  and  its  right  of  interposition  through  the  recurso 
de  fuerza,  and  the  subsequent  ineffectiveness  of  the  audiencia 
was  due  to  reasons  and  conditions  other  than  the  decline  of 
the  authority  and  importance  of  the  recurso  de  fuerza.  This 
controversy  which  is  more  fully  described  in  preceding  chap 
ters  affords  the  best  example  extant  of  the  operation  of  the 
recurso  de  fuerza,  its  nature  and  effects,  hence  the  citation  of 
minor  cases  is  rendered  unnecessary. 

Closely  related  to  the  question  of  fuerza  as  illustrating  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  over  the  church  courts,  occurs 
that  of  the  interdict.  A  price  which  the  civil  authorities  fre 
quently  had  to  pay  for  the  entertainment  of  the  recurso  dc 
fuerza,  or  any  other  opposition,  in  fact,  to  the  unrestricted 
authority  of  the  ecclesiastics,  was  the  penalty  which  usually 
accompanied  the  interdict,  of  being  forbidden  to  participate  in 
religious  rites  and  ceremonies,  or  to  continue  receiving  the  cus- 


Restraint  of  Interdict  423 

ternary  spiritual  consolations  and  benefits  of  the  church.33  The 
authority  of  the  audiencia  to  restrain  the  excessive  use  of  this 
weapon  by  the  ecclesiastics  may  be  considered  to  have  been 
judicial  in  its  nature,  since  the  prelates,  by  undue  use  of  the 
episcopal  censure,  went  beyond  their  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
and  encroached  upon  the  royal  prerogative.  A  form  of  judicial 
inquiry  was  instituted  to  ascertain  the  act  and  degree  of  en 
croachment  ;  indeed,  the  excessive  use  of  the  interdict  was 
interpreted  to  constitute  fuerza,  and  the  method  just  described 
was  employed  by  the  tribunal  to  combat  it. 

We  may  turn  again  to  the  Pardo  controvery  for  an  example 
of  the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  to  restrain  a  prelate  from 
excessive  use  of  the  interdict.  Pardo,  after  his  return  from 
exile,  fulminated  censures  against  ex-Governor  Juan  de  Vargas 
and  the  entire  audiencia.  wrhich  had  supported  him  against  the 
archbishop.  The  ban  against  the  oidores  was  quickly  removed, 
technically  on  the  grounds  that  the  magistrates  were  still 
royal  officials,  but  in  reality  for  the  sake  of  expediency. 
Vargas,  however,  was  not  absolved.  The  audiencia,  according 
to  the  existing  laws,  had  the  right  to  force  the  prelate  to  re 
move  the  ban,34  but  owing  to  dissensions  within  the  tribunal, 
the  opposition  of  the  new  governor,  the  increasing  power  of 
the  archbishop,  the  certainty  that  the  royal  authority  had  al 
ready  disapproved  of  its  acts,  and  the  impending  visitation  of 
a  royal  commissioner  (Valdivia),  who  had  instructions  to 
settle  the  discord  and  strife  at  Manila  at  any  cost,  the  oidores 
thought  it  best  not  to  take  this  step.  The  archbishop  refused 
to  absolve  Vargas  because  of  the  technical  reason  that  his 
case  came  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition. 

The  audiencia  was  expected  to  restrain  the  interdict  when 
ever  this  ecclesiastical  prohibition  interfered  with  the  govern- 


33  Escriche,  Diccio-nario,  I,  712. 

34  Recopilacion,  2-15-148:    See  expediente  on  affairs  in  the  Philip 
pines,  1690,  A.  I.,  67-6-3. 


424       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

ment  or  incapacitated  the  officials  thereof  from  executing  their 
duties.  The  interdict  was  not  to  interfere  with  the  royal 
prerogative,  nor  was  it  to  be  imposed  for  insignificant  causes, 
or  personal  reasons/'5  The  audiencia  was  given  the  special 
injunction  not  to  interfere  with  censures  generally,  but  to  per 
mit  them  to  be  applied  in  needful  cases,  the  oidorcs  bearing 
in  mind  only  the  requirement  that  these  ecclesiastical  measures 
should  not  be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  civil  government. ;ii 
It  had  frequently  been  the  practice  of  the  prelates  to  pro 
nounce  censures  against  oidores  and  alcaldes,  who,  in  proceed 
ing  with  their  duties  as  inspectors  of  the  provinces,  encroached 
upon  what  the  churchmen  regarded  as  their  own  particular 
and  private  jurisdicton.  This,  of  course,  was  forbidden,  and 
the  audiencia,  by  way  of  fuerza,  usually  entertained  appeals 
from  these  officials  of  the  civil  government  and  set  aside  all 
such  acts  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of  the  church. 
Reference  was  made  in  the  last  chapter  to  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  effort  of  Oidor  Guerela  to  inspect  the  province 
of  Camarines.  This  magistrate  was  excommunicated  by  the 
bishop  of  that  diocese  and  was  compelled  to  remain  in  banish 
ment  five  months,  the  audiencia  refusing  to  set  aside  the  cen 
sure  on  account  of  the  personal  animosity  of  the  magistrates 
toward  Guerela.  Nevertheless,  prelates  were  enjoined  to  obey 
the  audiencia  when  that  tribunal  ordered  the  cancellation  or 
suspension  of  an  episcopal  censure  or  prohibition.37  When  an 
appeal  was  made  to  the  audiencia  from  such  an  act  by  an 
alcalde,  oidor,  visitor,  or  other  official  at  some  distance  from 
the  capital,  the  prelate  was  expected,  upon  the  judicial  sum 
mons  of  the  audiencia,  to  suspend  his  censure  until  the  facts  of 
the  case  had  been  ascertained,  and  the  decision  of  the  tribunal 
had  been  rendered.38  This  was  the  law,  but  occasionally,  as  in 


"-Ibid.,  1-7-47. 
"«Ibid.,  2-15-149. 
37  Ibid.,  1-10-9. 
3S/6M.,  10;    2-15-136. 


Restraint  of  Interdict  425 

the  case  of  Guerela,  local  circumstances  rendered  impossible  or 
undesirable  the  fulfillment  of  the  law. 

It  has  been  shown  hi  the  preceding  chapter  that  before  the 
coming  of  the  audiencia,  the  church  had  utilized  the  weapon  of 
excommunication  on  very  slight  pretext,  and  it  had  been  partly 
for  the  purpose  of  restraining  this  abuse  that  the  audiencia 
was  established. :;!)  The  early  governors,  especially,  had  many 
difficulties  with  this  phase  of  ecclesiastical  high-handedness  and 
the  letters  of  such  executives  as  Ue  Vera,  Tello,  Dasmarinas, 
and  Morga  complained  continually  against  this  particular  abuse 
of  power  by  the  prelates,40  regretting  the  lack  of  any  authority 
to  set  aside  these  excessive  acts  on  the  part  of  the  churchmen. 
All  the  above-mentioned  governors  had  been  excommunicated 
for  various  acts  in  opposition  to  the  ecclesiastical  power.  Gov 
ernor  Ronquillo,  in  the  characteristic  letter  which  is  quoted  in 
another  part  of  this  treatise,  reported  that  the  audiencia,  after 
its  establishment,  had  effectively  restrained  the  excesses  of  ex 
communication  on  the  part  of  the  church.41  Indeed,  during 
the  twenty-five  years  succeeding  Ronquillo 's  term  as  governor, 
the  audiencia  had  so  frequently  set  aside  ecclesiastical  cen 
sures,  and  so  completely  terminated  the  abuses  of  the  privilege 
of  sanctuary  by  friars  and  priests,  in  fact  so  generally  held 
at  naught  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  immunity,  that  the 
king,  on  November  13,  1626,  was  obliged  to  issue  a  special 
ceduhi  in  restraint  of  his  Manila  tribunal  and  for  the  protection 
of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.42 

Examination  of  a  large  number  of  cases  shows  that  the 
method  bv  which  the  audiencia  set  aside  excommunication  was 


so  This  is  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

-*"  A.  I.,  1-1-3/25;  Blair  and  Robertson,  VIII,  275-281;  X,  79,  245-275. 

•11  Ronquillo  to  the  King,  July  12,  1599,  A.  I.,  67-6-6,  cited  in  the 
preceding  chapter. 

4-  Cedula  of  November  13,  1626,  A.  I.,  105-2-1;  for  cases  of  the 
excommunication  of  viceroys  and  oidorcs  and  other  matters  relating 
to  the  Inquisition  in  Peru  and  in  New  Spain  see  Lea,  The  inquisition 
in  tJic  Spanish  dependencies,  191-298,  319-451. 


426      Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

usually  through  an  ultimate  reliance  on  force.  Nevertheless, 
taking  three  hundred  years  of  the  history  of  the  Philip 
pines  into  consideration,  there  were  relatively  few  cases  in 
which  matters  went  so  far  that  the  audiencia  actually  had  to 
use  force,  the  case  being  usually  that  the  judicial  protest  of  the 
tribunal  against  an  abuse  of  this  kind  was  sufficient.  Theoreti 
cally,  any  act  of  excommunication  or  interdict  was  suspended. 
ipso  facto,  by  the  intervention  of  the  audiencia  pending 
further  investigation,  and  the  prelate  was  required  to  abide  by 
the  decision  of  the  tribunal. 

The  following  typical  cases  may  be  cited  to  show  that  the 
audiencia  frequently  did  rely  on  the  civil  power,  as  a  last 
resort,  for  the  enforcement  of  its  injunctions.  In  1623,  an 
oidor  was  excommunicated  for  having  violated  the  ecclesiasti 
cal  sanctuary  in  seizing  Juan  Soto  de  Vega,  a  fugitive  from 
justice,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the  cathedral.  The  audiencia, 
finding  itself  opposed  by  the  metropolitan  court,  sent  a  con 
stable  to  arrest  the  provisor  who  had  fulminated  the  excom 
munication,  threatening  the  latter  with  a  fine  of  two  thousand 
pesos  and  banishment  if  he  did  not  desist  and  cancel  the 
censure.  The  archbishop,  who  at  first  supported  the  provisor, 
was  put  under  military  guard  at  the  behest  of  the  audiencia. 
The  Jesuits  then  used  their  good  offices  in  behalf  of  the  gov 
ernment,  as  a  result  of  wyhich  the  matter  was  arbitrated  and 
peace  was  brought  about.43  In  1636,  however,  the  archbishop 
and  provisor  were  banished  and  fined  heavily,  because  they 
persisted  in  a  censure  which  the  audiencia  had  restrained. 
Their  continual  refusal  to  barken  to  the  commands  of  the  vice- 
patron  and  the  royal  tribunal  and  their  insistence  on  the  cen 
sure  were  adjudged  to  constitute  fuerza.  This  case  originated 
in  the  violation  of  the  right  of  asylum  by  the  governor  and 
the  arrest  of  a  murderer  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the  Augus- 


43  Corcuera  to  Felipe  IV,  September  25,  1623,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XXVI,  104-107. 


Ultimate  Reliance  on  Force  427 

tinian  convent.  So  open  was  the  defiance  of  the  civil  govern 
ment  that  the  criminal  was  executed  in  the  courtyard,  under 
the  very  windows  of  the  convent  wTherein  were  congregated 
the  prelate  and  his  supporters  who  were  commanded  not  to 
touch  the  body  for  three  days.44  The  archbishop  was  removed 
from  his  convent  by  soldiers  at  the  command  of  the  acuerdo 
and  banished  to  the  island  of  Corregidor,  where  he  remained 
twenty-six  days,  after  which  mediation  was  effected  and  the 
weak  old  prelate,  tottering  with  age,  was  restored  to  his  metro 
politan  capital.45  Montero  y  Vidal  states  that  this  case  is 
interesting  and  important  as  a  test  of  the  power  of  the  gov 
ernor;  for  many  persons,  he  alleges,  did  not  believe  that  the 
governor  could  raise  an  interdict.46  That  he  was  enabled  to  do 
so,  with  the  support  of  the  audicncia  and  with  the  aid  of  his 
military  forces  there  can  be  no  question. 

Some  reference  should  be  made  at  this  time  to  the  abuses 
of  the  interdict  by  Archbishop  Pardo.  This  prelate  went  so 
far  as  to  place  a  ban  upon  the  church  of  the  Jesuits  because 
it  contained  the  dead  body  of  an  offending  oidor.  For  reasons 
other  than  the  lack  of  legal  authority,  the  audiencia  was  power 
less  to  restrain  his  censures  at  that  time.  On  another  occasion 
the  audiencia  and  governor,  by  placing  armed  guards  at  the 
doors  of  the  Dominican  church  and  preventing  the  celebration 
of  services  therein,  suppressed  an  interdict  which  had  been 
issued  through  the  influence  of  that  order  on  behalf  of  Arch 
bishop  Pardo.  Governor  Bustamante  claimed  that  he  was  act 
ing  in  accordance  with  his  own  properly  constituted  authority 
in  1719,  when  he  appointed  his  own  audiencia,  set  aside  re 
peated  interdicts,  penetrated  the  asylum  of  the  church,  arrested 
the  archbishop  and  defied  the  entire  ecclesiastical  organization. 


44  Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  historical  view,  I,  268. 

45  Relation    of   1635-1636,   Blair   and    Robertson,   XXVI,    39-40;    see 
also  Corcuera  to  Felipe  IV,  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXVI,  60-127;    Mon 
tero  y  Vidal,  Historia  general,  I,  195-196. 

46  Montero  y  Vidal,  op.  cit.,  I,  193-197. 


428      Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

He  seems  to  have  exceeded  his  powers  no  more  flagrantly  than 
did  some  of  his  predecessors  under  like  circumstances;  yet,  for 
personal  and  political  reasons,  he  was  unable  to  count  on  the 
support  of  the  other  elements  of  the  colony  in  this  struggle 
with  the  ecclesiastical  power  and  the  battle  ended  disastrously 
for  him.  Acting-Governor  Anda,  relying  on  armed  force  alone, 
defended  Manila  against  the  British,  achieved  victory  for  his 
cause  and  secured  the  approbation  of  the  king  in  the  face  of 
repeated  ecclesiastical  censures  from  Archbishop  Rojo.  These 
incidents,  which  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  history  of  the 
Philippines,  illustrate  the  usual  method  by  which  ecclesiastical 
censures  were  set  aside  in  actual  practice,  either  by  the  audi- 
encia  or  by  the  vicepatron,  who  was  supported  by  the  tribunal. 
A  department  of  the  church  over  which  the  audiencia  did 
not  have  such  complete  authority,  either  judicially  or  adminis 
tratively,  was  the  Inquisition.  Properly  speaking,  there  was 
no  tribunal  of  the  Holy  Office  in  the  Philippines,  the  Inquisi 
tion  being  represented  in  Manila  by  a  commissary.47  This 
representative  was  sufficiently  powerful,  however,  to  constitute 
a  worthy  opponent  for  the  civil  power  and  one  who,  on  account 


47  The  Inquisition,  as  represented  by  one  commissary  and  three 
alternates  (who  were  usually  bishops)  was  established  in  the  Philip 
pines  on  March  1,  1583.  The  commissary  of  the  Inquisition  had  for  his 
special  field  all  questions  of  faith  and  heresy,  clearing  away  the  errors 
and  superstitions  against  the  dogma  and  the  lax  opinions  which  per 
vert  Christian  morals  (Perez  y  Lopez,  Tcatro,  XXVIII,  208).  The  In 
quisitor  of  the  Philippines  was  instructed,  on  his  arrival,  to  present  his 
papers  "to  the  ecclesiastical  and  lay  chapters  in  order  that  they  might 
receive  him  and  recognize  him  in  so  high  and  holy  an  office."  The  In 
quisition  was  represented  continuously  in  the  Philippines  until  1813. 
With  the  introduction  of  this  dignitary  may  be  noted  the  presence  in 
the  Philippines  of  at  least  five  authorities  with  ecclesiastical  jurisdic 
tion.  The  ordinary  ecclesiastical  tribunals  dealt  with  contentions 
within  the  Church.  The  papal  delegate  tried  cases  which  had  been 
appealed  from  these  ecclesiastical  courts.  The  regular  orders  had  their 
own  particular  tribunals  for  the  rule  and  discipline  of  their  members 
and  the  audiencia  exercised  such  ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  as  we  have 
noted  in  this  chapter.  There  may  be  slight  wonder,  therefore,  in  view 
of  the  presence  of  so  many  ecclesiastical  tribunals  with  similar  powers, 
that  there  were  frequent  conflicts  of  authority. 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Inquisition  429 

of  the  immunities  which  he  enjoyed  and  because  of  the  secret 
methods  which  he  was  able  to  employ,  kept  all  the  tribunals 
and  authorities  of  the  civil  government  at  a  respectful  distance. 
Although  the  laws  of  the  Indies  directed  that  the  inquisi 
tors  who  were  sent  to  the  colonies  should  present  their  titles 
to  the  audiencias  and  viceroys,  this  did  not  give  the  civil 
authorities  any  advantage  over  them.  The  audiencia  was  ex 
pected  to  formally  receive  the  inquisitors  and  to  pay  them  all 
due  respect.48  At  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisi 
tion  in  Manila,  no  audiencia  as  yet  existed.  From  the  very  be 
ginning,  however,  the  dignitaries  of  the  Inquisition  were  placed 
under  special  royal  protection,  with  complete  power  over  their 
own  sphere.  Officials  of  the  government  and  all  other  persons 
were  warned  and  enjoined  not  to  interfere  with  or  oppose 
them  in  any  way.  As  early  as  May  22.  1610,  the  Council  of 
the  Indies  placed  itself  and  all  subordinate  audiencias  and  gov 
ernors  in  a  position  inferior  to  that  of  the  Inquisition.  The 
interference  of  civil  magistrates  with  the  inquisitors  in  behalf 
of  the  government  was  forbidden,49  even  the  ordinary  means  of 
protection  were  denied  them.  The  recurso  dc  fuerza  could 
not  be  employed,  nor  could  the  interdicts  of  the  inquisitors  be 
raised,  even  in  notorious  cases  of  their  infringement  upon  the 
royal  jurisdiction.1"0  Little  change  was  made  in  these  laws  un 
til  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  oidorcs  were 
ordered  to  lend  such  secular  aid  as  might  be  required,  and  were 
originally  instructed  to  obey  the  mandates  and  carry  out  the 
orders  of  the  inquisitors  without  inquiries  into  the  religious 
reason  for  any  action  the  latter  might  take.  Each  judge, 
ecclesiastical  or  roval,  was  to  limit  himself  strictlv  to  his  own 


48  Rccopilacwn,  1-19-1. 

4i»  Law  of  May  22,  1610,  Eecopil-acwn.  1-19-2. 

•r>o  The  authorized  proceeding  in  such  a  case  was  to  appeal  to  the 
General  Council  of  the  Inquisition,  which  held  its  sessions  at  the  court. 
This  tribunal  was  authorized  to  nullify  or  reverse  any  harmful  act  or 
decision  which  the  ordinary  inquisitors  might  resolve  upon.  (Ccdula 
of  March  10,  1553,  Rccopilacvm,  1-19-4). 


430       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

particular  field  and  thus  conflicts  of  authority  were  to  be 
avoided. 

The  laws  of  the  Indies  prescribed  many  regulations  which 
were  designed  to  induce  harmony  and  co-operation  between 
the  officials  of  the  Inquisition  and  those  of  the  civil  govern 
ment.  Viceroys,  audiencias  and  governors  were  authorized  to 
execute  the  sentences  of  the  representatives  of  the  Inquisition 
and  to  extend  to  them  every  facility  and  assistance.51  Oidores 
and  executives  were  forbidden  to  open  the  mail  or  tamper 
with  the  correspondence  or  legal  documents  of  the  inquisitors.5- 
Oidores  and  fiscalcs  were  authorized  to  give  legal  advice  to  the 
judges  of  the  Inquisition  when  counsel  of  this  kind  was  re 
quired.53  The  inquisitors  were  to  be  given  precedence  over 
the  officials  of  the  civil  government  in  everything  pertaining 
to  the  official  duties  of  the  former,  but  in  questions  of  civil 
administration  and  in  matters  of  ceremony,  the  oidores  took 
precedence  over  inquisitors,  unless  the  latter  enjoyed  higher 
rank  by  virtue  of  some  other  office.54 

The  tendency  of  the  laws,  however,  through  a  period  of  two 
hundred  years,  was  to  delimit  and  circumscribe  the  authority 
of  the  Inquisition  in  matters  bordering  on  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  civil  government.  This  is  seen,  especially,  in  the  offense 
of  polygamy,  which,  up  to  1754,  was  dealt  with  solely  by  the 
Inquisition.  By  the  cedilla  of  March  19th  of  that  year, 
polygamy  was  brought  under  the  fuero  mixtof3  the  same  law 
ordered  that  prisoners,  after  punishment  by  the  inquisitorial 
tribunal  for  heresy,  should  be  dealt  with  by  civil  judges  for 
an  offense  against  the  laws  of  the  realm.  On  September  7, 


si  Rccopilacion,  1-19-18,  19. 

5-2  Ibid.,  16. 

^ibid.,  21  and  22. 

5*  Ibid.,  3-15-78. 

55  "When  a  case  may  be  tried  indistinctly  either  by  an  ecclesiastical 
or  lay  judge  it  is  said  that  the  case  is  of  the  fuero  mixto  and  then 
either  of  the  two  judges  may  take  up  the  case,  but  the  judge  who 
begins  it  must  be  the  last  to  try  it"  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  832-833). 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Inquisition  431 

1766,  this  crime  was  again  made  punishable  solely  by  the  In 
quisition,  but  on  August  10,  1788,  jurisdiction  over  cases  of 
polygamy  was  taken  entirely  from  the  Inquisition  and  given 
to  the  royal  justices.50  This  may  be  considered  as  indicative 
of  the  decline  of  the  authority  of  the  Inquisition  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  inquisitors,  of  course,  were  not  per 
mitted  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  Chinese,  or  over  the 
aboriginal  inhabitants  of  the  Islands.57 

In  its  relations  with  the  civil  power  in  the  Philippines, 
and  particularly  with  the  audiencia,  two  charges  have  been 
brought  against  the  Inquisition.  The  first  was  that  in  the 
early  years  of  the  Islands'  history,  it  was  utilized  by  the  prel 
ates  for  the  more  complete  usurpation  of  powers  belonging  to 
the  civil  government  and  the  audiencia.  The  tribunal,  of 
course,  was  left  entirely  without  recourse,  by  virtue  of  the  ex 
emptions  and  immunities  of  the  Inquisition  mentioned  above. 
On  July  20,  1585,  the  audiencia,  in  a  letter  to  the  king,  cited 
several  instances  in  which  Bishop  Salazar,  unwilling  to  cede 
his  claims  to  jurisdiction  over  certain  civil  offenders,  handed 
them  over  to  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  instead  of  sur 
rendering  them  to  the  audiencia,  to  which  jurisdiction  over 
such  cases  belonged.  The  audiencia,  appealing  to  the  king  for 
aid,  alleged  that  the  prelate  had  taken  undue  advantage  of  the 
civil  power,  "by  sheltering  himself  behind  the  Inquisition, 
.  .  .  where  the  audiencia  has  no  jurisdiction."58  This  charge 


se  See  note  to  Recopilacion,  1-19-4. 

37  Le  Gentil,  II,  172.     Recopilacwn,   6-1-35. 

38  Audiencia  to  the  King,   July   20,   1585,   A.   I.,   67-6-18.     On   June 
26,  1586,  the  audiencia  recommended  the  discontinuance  of  the  Inqui 
sition  in  the  Philippines  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  utilized  "as 
a  citadel  for  the  shelter  of  those  desirous  of  resisting  the  royal  author 
ity"   (Audiencia  to  the  King,  A.  I.,  68-1-33).     Archbishop  Santibanez, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  desirous  of  converting  the  inquisitorial  author 
ity  into  a  tribunal  to  consist  of  two  ecclesiastics  and  one  oiclor.     He 
argued   that  the   distance   from   Mexico   made   procedure   cumbersome, 
and  it  was  manifestly  unjust  that  residents  of  the  Philippines  should 
be  judged  by  a  foreign  court   (referring  to  the  tribunal  in  Mexico. — 
Santibanez  to  Philip  II,  June  24,  1598,  Blair  and  Robertson,  X,  151). 


432       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

was  also  brought  against  Salazar  by  the  Jesuit,  Sanchez,  in  his 
memorial  of  1591. r>y  It  is  significant  that  no  decree  was  issued 
during  the  earlier  era  which  authorized  the  audiencia  to  repair 
the  abuses  of  the  inquisitors,  although  on  many  occasions  the 
audiencia  and  the  local  court  of  the  Inquisition  were  respect 
ively  enjoined  to  confine  themselves  to  their  own  particular 
fields  of  authority.60 

The  second  charge  made  against  the  Inquisition  was  that  it 
allowed  itself  to  be  influenced,  utilized,  and  possessed  by  in 
dividuals  and  private  interests  for  their  own  selfish  ends. 
Under  these  conditions  the  audiencia  was  powerless ;  the  In 
quisition  openly  fought  the  government  and  vanquished  it 
entirely  on  various  notable  occasions.  There  may  be  found  no 
better  illustration  of  this  than  the  Saleedo  affair  in  1667  and 
1668,  during  which  the  commissary  of  the  Inquisition  was  the 
instrument  of  the  governor's  enemies,  proceeding  to  such  ex 
cesses  in  his  zeal  that  he  ultimately  proved  to  be  the  agent  of 
his  own  downfall.61 


These  same  sentiments  were  expressed  sixty  years  later  by  Francisco 
Bello,  procurator  at  Madrid  for  the  religious  orders.  The  Council  of 
the  Indies  returned  the  petition  which  had  been  submitted  by  this 
last-named  ecclesiastic,  to  the  Viceroy  of  New  Spain,  and  to  the  Audi 
encia  and  Archbishop  of  Manila,  respectively,  for  their  advice.  The 
consensus  of  opinion  was  against  the  idea  of  creating  a  tribunal  in 
Manila,  partially  on  account  of  the  expense.  It  was  also  shown  that 
such  a  reform  would  have  meant  a  loss  of  power  to  the  viceroyalty  of 
New  Spain,  and  by  the  adoption  of  such  a  suggestion  there  would  be 
created  a  powerful  tribunal  which  would  seriously  inconvenience  the 
authority  and  supremacy  of  the  audiencia  and  the  archbishop  at  Manila 
(Cmisulta  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies,  March  15,  1659,  A.  I.,  67-6-22). 

•">'•»  Cited  already  in  various  connections,  particularly  in  Chapters  II 
and  X  of  this  treatise. 

0(1  In  the  Philippines,  archbishops  were  frequently  able  to  combine 
the  functions  and  offices  of  metropolitan  prelate  and  commissary  of 
the  Inquisition.  This  gave  greater  pre-eminence  to  the  archbishop  and 
made  the  situation  more  difficult  for  the  civil  authorities.  We  have 
already  noted  an  illustration  of  this  in  the  case  of  Archbishop  Pardo 
(1683-1689).  Being  also  commissary  of  the  Inquisition,  he  refused  to 
grant  absolution  to  ex-Governor  Vargas,  claiming  that  his  authority  as 
sole  inquisitor  was  not  sufficient  to  justify  such  action  on  his  part 
without  first  receiving  advice  from  the  tribunal  in  Mexico. 

''!  Lea,  in  his  well-known  work  on   The   inquisition  in  the 


The  Salcedo  Affair,  1668  433 

The  various  sacerdotal  historians  of  the  Philippines,  in  treat 
ing  of  the  Salcedo  affair,  agree  that  the  failure  of  the  audiencia 
to  do  its  duty  in  checking  the  so-called  excesses  of  the  governor 
led  the  prelate  and  the  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  of  the  colony  to 
turn  to  the  Inquisition  for  relief.62  Among  the  acts  of  treason 


dependencies  says  that  "while  this  branch  of  the  Inquisition  (referring 
to  that  in  the  Philippines)  accomplished  so  little  for  the  faith,  it  was 
eminently  successful  in  the  function  of  contributing  to  the  disorder 
and  confusion  which  so  disastrously  affected  Spanish  colonial  admin 
istration"  (p.  308).  For  a  more  detailed  account  of  this  episode  see 
Cunningham,  "The  inquisition  in  the  Philippines:  the  Salcedo  affair," 
in  The  Catholic  historical  review,  III,  417-445. 

e-'  The  leading  church  historians  of  the  Philippines — Martinez  de 
Zufiiga,  Salazar,  Fonseca  and  Concepcion — were  naturally  unfavorable 
to  Salcedo  in  their  accounts  of  the  events  of  his  administration.  All 
agree,  however,  that  Salcedo  was  a  man  of  energy  and  precision,  who, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  rule,  gave  promise  of  universal  satisfaction.  The 
correspondence  of  the  civil  officials  who  were  contemporaneous  with 
the  governor,  and  the  letters  of  Salcedo  himself  show  that  his  chief 
concern  was  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  and  the  elimination  of  the 
ecclesiastical  and  commercial  graft  with  which  the  administration  of 
the  government  of  the  Philippines  was  permeated  on  his  arrival  in  the 
Islands  (Letters  of  Coloma,  Bonifaz,  Montemayor,  Leon,  and  the  Mu 
nicipal  Cabildo,  1670-1,  A.  I.,  67-6-3;  see  also  note  to  Ventura  del  Arco 
Mss.,  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXVII,  262). 

Zufiiga,  however,  states  that  Salcedo's  commercial  reforms  were 
only  intended  for  the  benefit  of  himself  and  his  friends,  and  that  he 
reserved  the  chief  articles  of  trade  for  himself,  leaving  only  second- 
rate  and  spoiled  goods  for  the  merchants.  This  same  historian  states 
that  the  governor  arranged  for  the  early  departure  of  the  galleon  on 
one  occasion,  with  his  goods  on  board,  leaving  those  of  the  majority 
of  the  merchants  unshipped  (Martinez  de  Zufiiga,  An  historical  view, 
I,  307-308).  Fonseca  charges  him  with  avarice,  maintaining  that  all 
classes  of  society  in  Manila  were  disgusted  with  the  governor's  com 
mercial  transactions  and  were  shocked  at  his  exile  of  the  archbishop. 
This  historian  relates  that  "the  magistracy,  the  army,  the  merchants, 
arts  and  industries,  ...  all  raised  their  voices  against  the  badly 
directed  government  of  Salcedo,  determining  to  over-turn  him;  repre 
sentative  citizens  of  Manila  petitioned  the  audiencia,  asking  that  it 
deprive  him  of  the  government,  .  .  .  and  the  royal  acuerdo  determined 
to  do  so,  but  at  the  last  moment  the  judges  disagreed  over  the  question 
of  whose  signature  should  precede  the  others;  this  question  remained  in 
litigation,  and  blocked  the  action  of  the  royal  acuerdo"  (Fonseca,  His- 
toria  de  la  provincia  de  santissimo  Rosario.  Libro  V,  Capitulo  VIII, 
quoted  in  8ol>re  una  resena  historica.  92).  Concepcion,  the  Augus- 
tinian  historian,  confirms  the  above,  and  gives  a  more  clarifying  reason 
for  the  failure  of  the  audiencia  to  oust  the  governor — namely,  that  the 
latter  was  sharing  his  commercial  profits  with  the  magistrates,  thereby 
purchasing  their  favors;  the  oidores  were  therefore  reluctant  to  take 
action  against  the  governor  (Concepcion,  Historia  general,  VII,  137-138, 
162-200). 


434       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

and  heresy  of  which  Governor  Salcedo  was  said  to  have  been 
guilty,  the  most  conspicuous  were  his  negotiations  with  the  Dutch 
at  Batavia  for  the  conquest  by  them  of  the  city  of  Manila.63  This 
was  the  leading  pretext  for  his  arrest.  We  have  already  men 
tioned  in  a  former  chapter  that  the  conduct  of  the  oidores  was 
not  above  reproach  on  this  occasion.  Immediately  after  the  re 
moval  of  the  governor,  a  dispute  arose  between  magistrates 
Coloma  and  Moiitemayor  for  the  control  of  affairs,  only  to  be 
settled  by  the  usurpation  of  the  government  by  the  ecclesiastical 
candidate,  Bonifaz.  With  Salcedo  out  of  the  way  and  the  audi- 
encia  intimidated  and  powerless,  the  Inquisition  and  the  eccles 
iastics  ruled  with  a  high  hand  for  a  period  of  three  years,  until 
the  arrival  of  the  new  governor,  Manuel  de  Leon,  in  1671.64 


63  Salcedo  was  charged  with  plotting  to  sell  the  Islands  to  the  Dutch 
and  with  surrounding  himself  with  Flemings,  one  of  whom  was  a 
Calvinist.  It  was  alleged  that  he  had  already  sent  large  sums  of  money 
to  Macao,  including  a  large  part  of  the  funds  in  the  Manila  treasury, 
and  that  he  was  preparing  to  depart  in  person.  It  was  said  moreover 
that  he  intended  to  return  in  command  of  a  Dutch  squadron  and  cap 
ture  the  colony  for  Holland.  It  is  evident  that  there  was  no  lack  of 
charges  against  Salcedo  (The  original  correspondence  and  consultas  of 
the,  various  tribunals  which  considered  the  charges  against  Salcedo  may 
be  noted  in  A.  I.,  67-6-3.  See  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXXVII,  37-60, 
Lea,  The  inquisition  in  the  Spanish  dependencies,  299-318,  and  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  mentioned  in  the  preceding  note). 

Dr.  Pardo  de  Tavera,  in  his  account  of  the  arrest  of  Governor  Sal 
cedo,  says  that  "in  1668,  Governor  Salcedo  had  some  difference  with 
(the  friars)  .  .  .  and  the  archbishop  and  as  a  result,  the  latter  decided 
to  avenge  themselves,  plotting  with  the  military  officials,  regidorcs  and 
merchants  to  bring  him  before  the  Inquisition.  They  made  a  con 
spiracy  and,  one  night  while  the  governor  slept,  the  conspirators, 
among  whom  were  the  provincial  of  the  Franciscans,  the  guardian  of 
the  convent  of  that  order  in  Manila,  and  various  other  ecclesiastics, 
entered  his  room,  surprising  him  while  he  slept,  and  placed  him  in 
irons.  He  was  thus  taken  to  the  convent  of  the  Franciscans,  but  con 
sidering  the  latter  insecure,  they  carriod  him  to  that  of  San  Augustin, 
loading  him  with  a  heavy  chain"  (Pardo  de  Tavera,  Reseila  Historica, 
37).  After  a  period  of  imprisonment  in  Manila,  Salcedo  was  ordered 
to  Mexico  for  trial  by  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition,  as  the  local 
authority  was  without  authority  to  take  further  action  in  the  matter. 
Salcedo  never  reached  his  destination,  however,  as  he  died  at  sea. 
This  was  subsequently  the  fate  of  Paternina,  the  inquisitor  who  was 
responsible  for  his  disgrace. 

<•>*  That  Governor  Leon  had  a  trying  position  to  fill  may  be  believed 
by  his  description  of  affairs  as  he  found  them  in  Manila,  and  of  his 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Inquisition  435 

The  audiencia,  after  it  had  been  reconstructed  by  Governor 
Leon,  gave  some  account  to  the  king  of  the  excesses  of  "Fray 
Joseph  de  Paternina,  religious  of  the  order  of  San  Agustin, 
and  commissary  of  the  Holy  Inquisition,  who  has  been  so  vain 
and  haughty  since  the  imprisonment  of  Governor  Salcedo,  a 
thing  very  unfortunate  for  these  Islands. ' ?63  The  most  harmful 
result  of  the  affair,  in  the  estimation  of  the  audiencia,  was  the 
growing  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  Philippines 
"that  the  Inquisition  (was)  the  most  powerful  agency  there, 
and  that  every  person  in  the  colony  was  subject  to  it."  The 
effrontery  of  the  commissary  was  said  to  have  gone  so  far  on 
one  occasion  that  he  entered  the  acuerdo  session  of  the  audi 
encia  and  violently  interfered  with  its  proceedings,  forcibly 
arresting  and  carrying  away  persons  attendant  thereupon.  This 
defiant  and  insolent  act  was  the  greatest  offense  that  could  be 
offered  to  the  royal  authority,  and  the  audiencia  felt  that  if  a 
continuance  of  these  excesses  were  tolerated  the  royal  tribunal 
would  be  despised  and  held  at  naught  by  the  very  citizens  who 
should  regard  it  with  the  most  veneration. 

A  list  of  the  acts  of  aggression  on  the  part  of  the  commis 
sary  was  submitted  by  the  audiencia  at  this  time.  He  had  com 
muted  a  sentence  pronounced  by  the  tribunal  and  had  excused 
various  fines  imposed  by  the  tribunal,  declaring  publicly  that 
it  was  not  necessary  to  obey  the  acts  of  this  body  of  lawyers. 
He  had  excommunicated  all  the  magistrates  of  the  audiencia, 


struggles  to  restore  the  royal  authority  to  its  proper  status.  He  gave 
a  full  account  of  "the  excessive  presumption  of  the  commissary  of  the 
Inquisition  in  the  arrest  of  Don  Diego  Salcedo,  my  (his)  predecessor, 
and  his  interference  in  matters  wherein  he  had  no  real  jurisdiction." 
Leon  reported  having  prevailed  upon  the  royal  audiencia  to  order  the 
commissary  to  refrain  from  meddling  in  affairs  which  did  not  con 
cern  the  Inquisition.  The  ways  of  the  Inquisition  he  described  as 
"dark  and  secret;"  it  was  "a  danger  and  a  fearful  power,"  a  "monster, 
feared  by  all,"  working,  not  in  the  light  of  day,  but  insidiously,  con 
stituting  a  sinister  power  whose  strength  was  not  fully  realized  (Leon 
to  Council,  June  10,  1671,  and  July  4,  1672;  Consulta  of  the  Council  of 
the  Indies,  July  16,  1674,  A.  I.,  67-6-3). 

es  Audiencia  to  the  King,  June  15,  1671,  A.  I.,  67-6-10. 


436       Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

who  remained  for  a  long  period  without  recourse  and  without 
the  privileges  of  religious  communion.  He  had  interfered  on 
behalf  of  an  cncomendero  who  was  on  trial  before  the  audi- 
encia.  He  had  produced  such  a  state  of  affairs  that  the 
impotence  of  the  civil  government  was  a  subject  of  com 
mon  jest,  even  in  the  mouths  of  the  natives.  The  supporters 
of  the  government  had  been  reduced  to  a  panic  of  fear,  not 
knowing  where  the  wrath  of  the  Inquisition  would  fall  next. 
The  commissary,  on  the  other  hand,  had  fortified  himself  with 
claims  of  immunity  arid  had  acted  in  defiance  of  royal  and 
ecclesiastical  law  by  erecting  a  tribunal  of  which  he  was  the 
head,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  such  an  institution  was 
forbidden  in  the  Philippines.  The  audiencia  presented  this 
picture  of  affairs  in  its  memorial,  admitting  its  incapacity  to 
cope  with  this  powerful  institution,  whose  acts  were  prepared 
and  executed  in  secrecy.  The  evil  situation  for  which  he  was 
responsible  could  only  be  repaired  by  an  appeal  to  Mexico. 
Meanwhile  the  government  and  people  in  the  Philippines  were 
compelled  to  suffer  the  consequences  of  his  assumption  of 
authority. 

There  was  no  tribunal  or  any  other  agency  in  the  Philip 
pines  able  to  place  an  effective  check  on  the  triumphant  in 
quisitor.  The  only  relief  that  could  come  was  furnished  on 
June  4,  1671,  in  the  appointment  of  a  new  commissary,  who 
was  ordered  to  arrest  Paternina  and  send  him  back  to  New 
Spain.  This  timely  relief  emanated  from  the  tribunal  of  the 
Inquisition  of  Mexico,  which  by  this  act  manifested  its  dis 
approval  of  all  that  had  been  done  by  its  ambitious  agent.  On 
August  12,  1672,  the  Council  of  the  Indies  also  disapproved 
of  Paternina 's  acts  in  connection  with  the  establishmc-nt  of  a 
Philippine  tribunal.00  The  new  commissary  did  nothing  toward 
the  continuance  of  the  tribunal  which  his  predecessor  had 
established  illegally. 


Consulta  of  the  Council,  August  12,  1672,  A.  I.,  67-6-10. 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Inquisition  437 

With  these  manifestations  of  the  royal  support,  the  audi- 
cncia,  which  had  been  reconstituted  on  the  arrival  of  Governor 
Leon,  regained  its  authority  and  proceeded  ably  to  second  the 
executive  in  his  struggle  with  the  powerful  ecclesiastical  organi 
zation.  The  new  commissary,  who  had  lost  his  papers  in  a 
shipwreck,  appealed  to  the  tribunal  for  recognition  and  sup 
port  in  a  struggle  which  he  had  undertaken  against  the  Fran 
ciscans.  Through  the  aid  given  him  by  the  audiencia,  he  im 
prisoned  the  provincial  and  definitor  of  that  order.  Then  the 
audiencia  reconsidered  its  decision  and  effected  the  liberation 
of  the  two  prisoners  on  the  ground  that  the  title  of  the  com 
missary  did  not  authorize  him  to  act  at  this  time.67  In  inter 
fering  with  and  actually  cancelling  the  acts  of  the  commissary, 
the  audiencia  was  exceeding  its  authority,  for  the  laws  pre 
scribed  that  his  decisions  could  be  reversed  only  by  his  imme 
diate  superior,  the  tribunal  of  Mexico.  However,  the  audiencia 
maintained  that  it  was  acting  in  accordance  with  the  law 
which  authorized  it  to  receive  and  recognize  inquisitors.  On 
this  occasion  it  was  merely  deciding  that  the  commissary  was 
acting  without  proper  authority  since  his  credentials  had  never 
arrived.68  At  this  time,  the  moral  standing  of  the  Philippine 
agent  of  the  Inquisition  was  at  a  very  low  ebb,  both  in  Manila 
and  Madrid,  which,  of  course,  influenced  the  decision  of  the 
audiencia. 

The  Salcedo  affair  and  the  succeeding  events  make  it  clear 
that  neither  the  authority  of  the  audiencia  nor  of  the  Inquisi 
tion  was  unlimited.  The  fear  and  respect  with  which  the  latter 
institution  was  regarded  contributed  to  its  momentary  triumph. 
The  audiencia  did  not  interfere  with  or  seek  to  restrain  the 
acts  of  the  commissary ;  indeed,  the  tribunal  connived  at  the 
exile  of  the  vicepatron  since  the  oidorcs  expected  to  profit  from 
the  act.  During  these  three  years  the  Inquisition  allied  itself 


67  Montero  y  Vidal,  I,  356. 

68  Acuerdo  of  August  24,  1672,  A.  I.,  67-6-10. 


438       Audiencia  and  Church:   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

practically  to  every  interest  in  the  colony  which  had  been  op 
posed  to  the  governor.  The  royal  interests  were  for  a  time 
forgotten  and  wholly  unchampioned,  owing  to  the  weakness  of 
the  audiencia,  the  removal  of  the  governor,  and  the  united  front 
presented  by  the  ecclesiastical  element.  This  condition  was 
altered  by  the  arrival  of  a  new  governor  who  bore  evidence 
of  the  disapprobation  of  the  superior  government.  The  tri 
bunal  of  Mexico  discountenanced  the  acts  of  its  former  repre 
sentative,  and  that  disapproval  was  further  emphasized  by  the 
adverse  attitude  of  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  The  audiencia 
was  restored  to  its  proper  position,  and,  in  conjunction  with 
the  vicepatron,  it  resumed  its  status  as  the  agent  of  the  royal 
will.  So  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  supremacy  of  both  authori 
ties  was  relative,  recognition  depending  partially  on  local  cir 
cumstances  and  ultimately  on  the  attitude  of  the  superior  gov 
ernment.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  the  latter  was  the  decid 
ing  factor.  In  the  struggle  itself,  before  the  decision  of  the 
home  authorities  was  rendered,  the  preponderance  .of  power  was 
enjoyed  by  the  Inquisition.  This  was  owing  to  the  advantages 
which  law  and  precedent  had  given  to  it  as  a  privileged  ecclesi 
astical  tribunal,  although  the  efficacy  of  the  Inquisition  lay  for 
the  most  part  in  the  immunities  which  wrere  extended  to  it  and 
in  its  swift,  unexpected  and  secret  methods.  Its  ultimate  defeat 
on  this  occasion,  and  the  continued  abuse  of  its  power,  did 
much  to  detract  from  its  prestige  and  authority  in  the  Philip 
pines.09 


no  while  the  Salcedo  affair  accurately  depicts  the  power  which  the 
Inquisition  assumed  on  a  particular  occasion,  the  episode  cannot  be 
said  to  illustrate  its  power  and  influence  throughout  the  history  of  the 
Islands.  Indeed,  never  on  any  former  or  subsequent  occasion  did  the 
Inquisition  constitute  such  a  menace  to  the  state.  It  was  generally 
prevented  from  exercising  too  much  power  in  the  Philippines  by  its 
own  isolation.  Represented  by  a  single  agent,  who  was  not  always  on 
good  terms  with  the  other  ecclesiastical  authorities  there,  and  who 
was  thousands  of  miles  from  his  immediate  superior,  the  tribunal  of 
Mexico,  he  was  confronted  and  opposed  by  the  combined  civil,  secular 
and  monastic  powers.  Owing  to  these  circumstances,  the  commissary  of 
the  Inquisition  in  the  Philippines  could  not,  single-handed  and  unaided, 
constitute  a  long-continued  danger  to  the  commonwealth. 


The  Audiencia  and  the  Inquisition  439 

During  the  eighteenth  century  considerable  authority  over 
the  Inquisition  was  given  to  the  civil  courts.  The  former  posi 
tion  of  supremacy,  wherein  its  authority  could  not  be  so  much 
as  questioned  by  a  secular  tribunal,  was  gone  forever.  On 
August  2,  1748,  a  decree  was  promulgated  whereby  chanceries, 
audieneias,  and  corregidores  were  authorized  to  restrain  any 
inquisitorial  tribunal  from  maltreating  its  own  prisoners.70  This 
same  law  provided  for  the  punishment  by  the  civil  courts  of 
inquisitors  who  contravened  this  law.  This  was  the  first  regu 
lation  which  really  gave  to  the  audiencia  the  power  necessary 
to  restrain  the  acts  of  the  Inquisition.  We  find  'no  indication  of 
any  such  liberal  legislation  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  but  by  the  time  this  law  was  promulgated,  the  power 
of  the  church  in  Spain  was  considerably  reduced  and  that  of 
the  Inquisition  was  already  on  the  decline.  By  a  number  of 
subsequent  laws  the  Inquisition  was  gradually  but  surely 
limited  in  power  and  authority.  We  have  already  noted  that 
on  August  10,  1788,  jurisdiction  over  the  crime  of  polygamy 
and  over  cases  involving  the  infraction  of  the  marriage  rela 
tion  was  taken  from  the  Inquisition  and  given  to  the  civil 
courts.71  By  the  cedilla  of  December  12,  1807,  authority  was 
given  to  the  royal  justices  to  receive  inquisitors,  inspect  their 
titles  and  to  assign  them  to  their  districts,  assisting  them  in  all 
possible  ways.  The  civil  authorities  were  ordered  to  guard 
against  an  excessive  number  of  these  functionaries.  The  magis 
trates  were  especially  instructed  to  act  as  guardians  of  the 
royal  prerogative  in  dealing  with  the  representative  of  the  In 
quisition  and  to  report  to  the  superior  government  on  their 
relations  with  them.  By  this  cedilla  the  authority  of  the  in 
quisitorial  agents  was  distinctly  limited  to  matters  of  faith, 
with  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition.  The  magistrates 


-o  Realcs  resoluciones  no  rccopiladas,  Perez  y  Lopez,  Tratro.  XXVIII, 
207. 

~i  Recopilacion,  1-19,  note  2. 


440       Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

were  ordered  to  see  that  these  instructions  were  followed.72 
In  this  way  the  civil  authorities,  and  particularly  the  magis 
trates  of  the  audiencias,  became  the  guardians  of  the  royal 
prerogative  against  the  agents  of  the  Inquisition,  who  were 
kept  within  the  proper  bounds  of  a  purely  religious  juris 
diction. 

It  would  be  desirable,  did  time  and  space  allow  it,  to  illus 
trate  further  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  over  ecclesiastical 
affairs  by  showing  in  detail  the  part  which  the  tribunal  played 
in  the  friar  lands  litigation73  and  in  the  disputes  over  ecclesi 
astical  visitation  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
in  the  Philippines.  It  will  be  sufficient  here  to  state  that  the 
government  sought  at  irregular  intervals  and  with  varying 


<2  ibid.,  note  1.  This  tendency  culminated  in  the  decree  of  Febru 
ary  22,  1813,  which  suppressed  the  Supreme  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisi 
tion  and  renewed  the  jurisdiction  of  bishops  and  vicars  over  cases 
involving  the  faith,  as  had  been  the  practice  before  the  Inquisition 
was  instituted.  All  property  belonging  to  the  Inquisition  reverted  to 
the  crown.  Soon  after  the  restoration  of  Ferdinand  VII  the  Inquisi 
tion  was  revived,  against  the  will  of  that  monarch,  it  is  said,  but  it 
was  again  abolished  by  the  decrees  of  March  9,  1820,  and  July  1  1835. 

As  a  result  of  the  suppression  of  the  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition 
on  March  9,  1820,  and  the  transfer  of  its  authority  over  matters  of 
faith  to  the  vicars  and  bishops,  Escriche  says  that  "in  the  exercise  of 
their  jurisdiction  some  of  these  prelates  exceeded  their  authority  and 
established  in  their  respective  dioceses  juntas  de  ft',  which  turned  out 
to  be  in  reality  inquisitorial  tribunals  with  practically  the  same  author 
ity  which  former  tribunals  had  exercised.  They  inflicted  corporal  and 
spiritual  punishments  and  guarded  in  their  ministry  the  most  inviol 
able  secrecy."  As  soon  as  reports  of  this  unexpected  assumption  of 
authority  came  to  the  notice  of  the  government,  Ferdinand  hastened 
to  order  the  suppression  of  these  self-constituted  tribunals,  without 
immediate  success,  however.  Escriche  tells  us  that  they  continued 
their  excesses  for  some  time,  "depriving  accused  persons  of  the  means 
of  defense,  keeping  from  them  the  names  of  persons  testifying  against 
them,"  flagrantly  disregarding  the  dispositions  of  the  brief  of  Pius  VII, 
dated  October  5,  1829,  in  prohibition  of  exactly  these  abuses.  On  Feb 
ruary  6,  1830,  a  cedilla  was  expedited  which  authorized  appeals  in  cases 
of  this  nature  until  three  conforming  decisions  were  rendered.  The 
decree  of  July  1,  1835,  abolished  these  tribunals,  ordering  the  pre 
lates  to  exercise  jurisdiction  with  appeal  to  the  Department  of  Grace 
and  Justice  (Escriche,  Diccionario,  I,  773). 

"3  The  author  has  treated  this  subject  in  a  separate  monograph  en 
titled  "The  origin  of  the  friar  lands  question  in  the  Philippines,"  in 
The  American  political  science  review,  X,  463-480. 


Litigation  Over  Friar  Lands  441 

degrees  of  success,  to  make  the  orders  prove  titles  to  lands 
in  the  same  manner  that  was  required  of  other  corporations  and 
individuals.74  The  andiencia,  as  a  tribunal,  and  the  individual 
magistrates  as  special  commissioners,  participated  judicially  in 
the  examination  of  these  titles  and  in  the  correction  of  the 
abuses  which  were  discovered.  The  oidores,  when  serving  as 
special  magistrates  for  the  verification  of  these  titles,  officiated 
in  a  double  capacity.  By  the  very  nature  of  the  services 
rendered  they  were  judges.  They  were  also  agents  of  the  royal 
patron  and  as  such  they  represented  the  person  of  the  king, 
ascertaining  whether  the  royal  rights  had  been  usurped  or 
infringed  upon. 

Closely  similar  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  audiencia  as  a 
court  of  final  resort  in  the  testing  of  the  titles  to  lands  occu 
pied  by  religious  orders  was  that  which  it  exercised  in  the 
matter  of  ecclesiastical  visitation.  This  was  a  question  of  a 
more  thoroughly  religious  character  which  did  not  concern  the 
civil  government  as  intimately  as  did  the  matter  of  friar  lands. 
In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  audiencia  was  utilized  by 
both  sides  in  the  various  disputes  which  arose  in  connection 
with  ecclesiastical  visitation.  During  the  ecclesiastical  adminis 
trations  of  Archbishops  Salazar,  Serrano,  Poblete,  Camacho, 
Pardo  and  Justa  y  Rufina,  practically  until  the  end  of  the 
•eighteenth  century,  this  question  was  continually  agitated. 
These  archbishops  attempted  to  visit  and  inspect  the  curacies 


"•*  The  friar  lands  litigation  began  in  1687  and  continued  until  1751. 
The  efforts  of  the  government  met  with  considerable  opposition.  The 
oidores  who  were  charged  with  the  inspection  of  the  titles  to  these 
lands  frequently  abandoned  their  commissions  and  recommended  that 
the  friars  be  left  alone.  However,  in  the  year  last  mentioned,  the 
opposition  of  the  Franciscans,  the  last  of  the  resisting  orders,  was 
•overcome  (Correspondence  regarding  friar  lands  exists  in  A.  I.,  68-4-12 
and  68-6-26).  See  also  the  Camacho  Controversy,  Blair  and  Robertson, 
XLII,  25-116;  Montero  y  Vidal,  Hifitoria  general,  I,  385,  et  seq.;  Con- 
cepcion,  Historic,  general,  VIII,  192-206;  Philippine  Census,  I,  342- 
343'  Sobre  una  resefta  historiea  by  the  Dominicans  of  Manila,  65-89). 


442       Audiencia  and  ChurcJi :   Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

which  were  held  by  friars  in  lieu  of  secular  priests.75  The 
archbishops  relied  on  the  audiencia  for  assistance  in  the  en 
forcement  of  their  claims  and  the  friars  sought  its  protectioTt 
as  a  court  of  justice  to  shield  them  from  the  visitation  of  the 
prelate.  As  in  the  matter  of  the  friar  lands,  so  in  this  ques 
tion,  the  audiencia  acted  both  as  a  tribunal  of  justice  and  as  an 
agent  and  champion  of  the  royal  patronage.  Indeed,  the  laws 
of  the  Indies  established  the  audiencia  as  a  tribunal  and  as  a 
compelling  authority  for  the  enforcement  of  ecclesiastical  visi 
tation.76  The  archbishop  was  directed  to  appeal  to  the  audi 
encia  or  vicepatron  for  assistance  in  the  subjection  of  offending 
curates,77  but  he  was  forbidden  to  visit  the  regulars  in  their 
convents,78  which,  of  course,  did  not  prevent  his  visiting  them 
when  in  charge  of  curacies.  On  the  other  hand,  the  audiencia 
was  forbidden  to  entertain  appeals  on  the  ground  of  fuerza 
from  regulars  who  objected  to  the  visitation  of  the  prelates.79' 
Local  conditions  in  the  Philippines  did  much  toward  de 
termining  the  character  of  the  support  rendered  by  the  audi 
encia  both  to  the  archbishops  and  to  the  friars.  During  the 
later  months  of  the  Pardo  controversy,  when  the  audiencia  had 
been  demoralized  by  the  triumph  of  the  archbishop  and  the 
visitor,  Valdivia,  the  decision  of  the  tribunal  had  but  little 
weight  and  the  prelate  did  as  he  wished  in  regard  to  the  mat 
ter  of  visitation.  In  Camacho's  time,  when  the  friars  were  on 


73  "In  America  [and  in  the  Philippines]  the  monks  were  given  a 
somewhat  unusual  position.  According  to  the  canon  law  they  were 
not  able  to  hold  beneficed  curacies,  but  the  extent  of  the  American 
field,  and  the  limited  number  of  the  clergy  available  to  occupy  it, 
induced  Leo  X,  Adrian  VI,  Paul  III,  Clement  VIII,  and  Pius  V  to  per 
mit  them  to  become  parish  priests.  Under  this  order  a  very  large 
number  of  these  parishes  in  America  in  the  first  century  were  occu 
pied  by  friars.  But  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  this  privi- 
iege  was  withdrawn,  leaving  them  only  two  friars  in  a  conventual 
province"  (Moses,  South  America  on  the  eve  of  emancipation.  138-139). 

76  See  Cunningham,  "The  question  of  ecclesiastical  visitation  in  the 
Philippines,"  in  The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history,  223-237. 

77  Recopilaeh'/n,  1-15-28. 
is  Ibid.,  29. 

79  Ibid.,  31. 


Ecclesiastical  Visitation  Controversies  443 

the  point  of  leaving  the  Islands  rather  than  submit  to  visita 
tion,  the  audiencia  and  the  governor  wisely  counseled  modera 
tion  and  completely  abandoned  the  obstinate  prelate.  During 
Alula's  term  of  office  the  question  was  again  taken  up,  but  the 
effort  to  enforce  the  principle  was  abandoned  because  the 
government  could  not  find  seculars,  either  Spanish  or  nathe, 
to  take  the  place  of  the  friars  who  threatened  to  leave  the 
Islands  if  visitation  were  insisted  upon.  The  magistrates  like 
wise  rendered  invaluable  service  in  imparting  legal  advice  to 
the  vicepatron,  friars  and  others  interested.  They  also  kept 
the  court  informed  as  to  what  was  actually  transpiring  in  the 
colony.  It  may  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  audiencia  partici 
pated  in  two  important  ways  in  the  enforcement  of  episcopal 
visitation.  It  was  primarily  a  court;  it  acted  as  agent  of  the 
royal  patron.  In  these  capacities  the  influence  of  the  tribunal 
was  greatest.  It  also  exercised  functions  of  an  advisory  char 
acter  in  aiding  the  authorities  concerned  to  ascertain  their 
rights  according  to  the  existing  law.80 

In  summarizing  the  results  of  the  investigation  with  which 
this  chapter  has  been  concerned,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
audiencia  constituted  a  court  of  appeal  in  ecclesiastical  cases 
wherein  the  services  of  an  impartial,  non-ecclesiastical  tribunal 
were  required,  or  wherein  the  defense  of  the  royal  jurisdiction 
against  the  aggression  of  the  churchmen  was  involved.  In  de 
fending  the  civil  government  from  ecclesiastical  usurpation  the 
audiencia  acted  in  defense  of  the  royal  patronage.  Neverthe 
less,  in  the  cases  noted,  namely,  in  settling  disputes  between 
orders,  between  the  secular  church  and  the  orders,  between 
either  of  these  and  the  civil  government,  in  entertaining 


so  Valuable  materials,  for  the  most  part  original,  on  the  visitation 
controversy  may  be  found  in  Blair  and  Robertson,  XXIV,  247;  XXIX, 
191;  XLII,  25-116;  XX,  87;  XXI,  32-78;  XXXVII,  193-200.  See  also 
A.  I.,  69-1-29,  68-4-16,  106-4-21,  105-2-9,  106-4-31.  Montero  y  Vidal 
(Historia  general  I,  86-87,  295,  398;  II,  134-138,  257  et  seq.)  presents 
a  good  secondary  account  of  the  subject. 


444      Audiencia  and  Church:  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction 

recursos  de  fu-crza,  in  restraining  the  interdict,  and  the  abuses 
of  the  Inquisition,  the  audiencia  acted  by  judicial  process  as  a 
tribunal  of  justice,  and  not  in  the  capacity  of  an  administra 
tive  committee  or  an  executive  agent,  as  in  the  cases  which 
have  been  heretofore  described. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

LIST  OF   PRINTED  WORKS   CITED 

ALCEDO,  ANTONIO  DE 

Diccionario  gcogrdfico-historieo  de  las  Indias  Occidentals  6  Amer 
ica.    5  vols.    Madrid,  1786-1789. 

ALTAMIRA  Y  CREVEA,  RAFAEL 

Historia  de  Espatla  y  de  la  civilizacinn  espanola.     3d  ed,  4  vols. 
Barcelona,  1913. 

ALVAREZ  DE  ABREU,  ANTONIO 

Extracto  historial.     Madrid,  1736. 

ANTEQUERA,  JOSE  MARIA 

Historia  de  la  legislation  espai'tola.  desde  los  tiempos  mas  remotes 

Jiasta  nucstros  dias.     2d  ed.,  Madrid,  1884. 
ARTIGAS,  MANUEL 

El  scrvicio  de  adua/iws  en  Filipinas.    Madrid,  1895. 
BANCROFT,  HUBERT  HOWE 

History  of  Central  America.     3  vols.     San  Francisco,  1882-1887. 
History  of  Mexico.     6  vols.     San  Francisco,  1883-1888. 
BARROWS,  DAVID  P. 

A  history  of  tJie  Philippines.     Indianapolis,  1905. 
"The    governor-general    of    the    Philippines    under    Spain    and    the 
United  States,"  in   The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history    (Stephens  and 
Bolton,  editors),  238-265.     New  York,  1917. 
BELENA,  EUSEBIO   BENTURA 

Recopilacion  sumaria,  de  todos   los  autos  acordados  de  la  real  au- 
dicncia  y  sala  del  critnen  de  esta  Nueva  Espana.   2  vols.    Mexico, 
1787. 
BLACKMAR,  FRANK  W. 

Spanish  institutions  of  tlie  Southwest.     Baltimore,  1891. 
BLAIR,  EMMA  HELEN,  AND  ROBERTSON,  JAMES  ALEXANDER   (editors) 

The  Philippine  Islands,  l.',93-1898.     55  vols.     Cleveland,  1903-1909. 
BLUMENTRITT,  FERDINAND 

Consideraciones  acerca  de  la  actual  situation  politico,  de  Filipinas. 

Barcelona,  1889. 
BOLTON,  HERBERT  EUGENE 

Guide  to  materials  for  the  history  of  the  United  States  in  the  prin 
cipal  archives  of  Mexico.     Washington,  1913. 

Texas  in  the  middle  eighteenth  century;  studies  in  Spanish  colonial 
history  and  administration.     Berkeley,  1915. 


446  Bibliography 

BOURNE,  EDWARD  GAYLORD 

Discovery,   conquest,   and   early  history  of  the   Philippines.     Cleve 
land,  1907. 

Spain  in  America,  14-50-1580.     New  York,  1906. 

"The  Philippine  'situado'  from  the  treasury  of  New  Spain,"  in  The 

American  historical  revieic,  X,  459-461. 
BUZETA,  MANUEL,  and  BRAVE,  FELIPE 

Diccionario  geogrtifico,  estadistieo,   histurico  de  las  islas  Filipinos. 

2  vols.     Madrid,  1850-1851. 
CANOVAS  DEL  CASTILLO,  MAXIMO 

Noticifis  historical},  geogrdficas,  cstadisticas,  administrativas  y  mili- 

tares  de  las  islas  Filipinas.    Madrid,  1859. 
CASTRO,  AGUST!N  MAKIA  DE 

Resena  sobre  la  guerra  de  los  Inglescs.     Manila,  1765. 
CAVADA  Y  MENDEZ  DE  VIGO,  AGUSTIX  DE  LA 

Historia,    gcografia,   geologic,   y   estadistica    de   Filipinas.     2    vols. 

Manila,  1876. 
CHAPMAN,  CHARLES  E. 

The  founding  of  Spanish  California;  the  northwesticard  expansion 

of  New  Spain,  1687-1783.    New  York,  1916. 
CHIRINO,  PEDRO 

Relation  de  las  islas  Filipinas   i  de  lo  qve  en  ellas  an  trabajado 

los  padres  de  la  Compaiiia  de  lesus.    Rome,  1604. 
Coleccion  de  Autos  aeordados  de  la  real  audiencia  [y]  chancillerla  de 

Filipinas.     5  vols.     Manila,  1861-1866. 
Coleccion   de  documentos   ineditos  para    la   historic  de   Espana.     113 

vols.     Madrid,  1842-1912. 
Coleccion    de   documentos    ineditos    relatives    al   descubrimicnto,    con- 

quista   y   colonizacion    de   las   posesiones   espaiiolas   en   America   y 

Oceania,  sacados,   en  sit  mayor  parte,  del  Real  Archivo  de  Indian. 

42  vols.     Madrid,  1864-1886. 
Coleccion  de  documentos  ineditos  rclativos  al  descubrimiento,  conquista 

y  organization  de  las  antiguas  posesioncs  espanolas  de  ultra-mar. 

Segunda  serie.    13  vols.    Madrid,  1886-1887. 
Coleccion   de   las   leyes,   dccretos,  y  declaraciones  de   las   cortcs  y   los 

rcales   decretos.   ordenes,   etc.,    desde   1837   hasta    Dicicmbrc,   1845. 

13  vols.    Madrid,  1845.     Continued  from  1846  as  the  Coleccion  legis 
lative  de  Espana. 
Coleccion  del  real  decrcto  de  21  de  Febrero  de  1767  para  la  ejecucion 

del  extranamicnto  de  los  regularcs  de  la  Compania.     Madrid,  1767 
Coleccion  legislativa  de  Espana.     180  vols.     Madrid,  1810-1898. 


Bibliography  447 

COLIN,  FRANCISCO 

Labor  evangclica,  ministerios  apostolicos  de  los  obreros  de  la  Com- 
pania  de  lesus,  fundacion  y  progresos  de  su  provincia  en  las 
islas  Filipinas.  Nueva  edition  .  .  .  por  el  P.  Pablo  Pastels. 
Barcelona,  1900-1902.  [First  ed.  Madrid,  1663.] 

COMYN,    TOMAS    DE 

Estado  de  las  islas  Filipinas.    Madrid,  1820. 

CONCEPCION,  JUAN  I>E  LA 

Historia  general  de  Philipinas.     14  vols.     Manila,  1788-1792. 

COROLEU  E  INGLADA,  JOSE 

America,  historia  de  su  colonization,  domination  c  independencia. 

4  vols.     Barcelona,  1896. 
CRAIG,  AUSTIN 

The  former  Philippines  through  foreign  eyes.     Manila,  1916. 

CRAIG,  AUSTIN,  AND  BENITEZ,  CONRADO 

Philippine  progress  prior  to  1898.    Manila,  1916. 
CRETINEAU-JOLY,  JACQUES 

Clcmente  XIV  y  los  Jesuitas,  6  sea  la  historia  de  la  destruction  de 
los  Jesuitas.  Madrid,  1848. 

Histoire  religieuse  politique  et  littcrairc  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus. 

5  vols.     Paris,  1859. 
CUNNINGHAM,  CHARLES  HENRY 

"Origin  of  the  friar  lands  question  in  the  Philippines,"  in  The 
American  political  science  review,  X,  463-480. 

"The  ecclesiastical  influence  in  the  Philippines,"  in  The  American 
journal  of  theology,  XXII,  161-186. 

"The  inquisition  in  the  Philippines,"  in  The  Catholic  historical  re 
view,  III,  417-445. 

"The  institutional  background  of  Spanish-American  history,"  in 
The  Hispanic  American  review,  I,  24-39. 

"The  question  of  ecclesiastical  visitation  in  the  Philippines,"  in 
The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history  (Stephens  and  Bolton,  editors), 
223-237.  New  York,  1917. 

"The  residencia  in  the  Spanish  colonies,"  in  The  Southwestern  his 
torical  quarterly.  XXI,  253-278. 

DAN  VILA  Y   COLLADO,  MANUEL 

El  poder  civil  en  Espaila.     6  vols.     Madrid,  1885-1886. 
Historia  del  rcinado  de  Carlos  III.     6  vols.     Madrid,  1893. 
Signification  qu-e   tuvicron  en  el  gobierno   de  America  la  casa,  de 

contratacion  de  Sevill-a  y  el  conscjo  supremo  de  Indias.    Madrid, 

1892. 


448  Bibliography 

Decretos  creando  y  organizando  el  cuerpo  de  administration  civil  dc 
Filipinas.     Madrid,  1870. 

Decretos  de  la  Reina  Dona  Isabel  //,...  desde  1834  hasta  Diciembre 
de  1836.     2  vols.     Madrid,  1835-1837. 

Decretos  del  rey  Don  Fernando  VII  .   .   .  desde  el  4  de  Mayo  de  1S1.'/. 
hasta  fin  de  Diciembre  de  1831  .   .   .  y  .   .   .  desde  1832,  hasta  fin  de 
Diciembre  de  1833.     18  vols.     Madrid,  1818-1834. 
DELGADO,  JUAN 

Historia  general  sacro-profana,  politica  y  natural  dc  las  islas  del 

Poniente,  llamadas  Filipinas.    Manila,  1892. 
DESDEVISES  DU  DEZERT,  GAST6N 

L'Espagne  de  1'ancien  regime.     3  vols.     1897-1904. 
"Vice-rois  et  capitaines  generaux  des  Indes  espagnoles  a  la  fin  du 
XVIII  e  siecle,"  in  the  Revue  hutoriqiie,  CXXV,  223-264;  CXXVI, 
14-60,  225-270. 
DIAZ,  CASIMIRO 

Conquistas  de  las  islas  Filipinos.    Valladolid,  1890     [First  ed.  1718.] 
ELLIOTT,  CHARLES  BURKE 

The  Philippines;  to  the  end  of  the  military  regime;  to  the  end  of 
the  commission  government.    2  vols.    Indianapolis,  1916,  1917. 
ESCRICHE,  JOAQUIN 

Diccionario  razonado  dc  legislation  y  jurisprudencia.    3d  ed.,  2  vols. 

Madrid,  1847. 

Estadistica  de  las  causas  criminates,  negocios  civiles  y  expedientes 
de  gobierno  despaehados  por  la  audiencia  de  Manila  durante  el 
atlo  de  1876.  Manila,  1877. 

Estadistica   gen-eral   de    los   negocios   terminados   y   pendientes   de 
despaclio  en  la  real  audiencia  de  Filipinas  en  fin  de  aiio  dc  1861. 
Manila,  1869. 
Estadistica  judicial  de  negocios  despaehados  por  la  real  audiencia 

de  Cebu  en  1886.     Cebu,  1887. 
Suplcmento  al  diccionario  razonado  de  legislation  y  jurisprudencia. 

Madrid  and   Santiago,  1851. 
FABIE,  ANTONIO  MARIA 

Ensayo  historico  de  la  legislation  cspaflola.     Madrid,  1896. 
FERNANDEZ  MARTIN,  MANUEL  DE 

Compilation  legislativa  del  gobierno  y  administration  civil  en  ul- 

tramar.    15  vols.     Madrid,  1888-1898. 
FERRANDO,  JUAN 

Hifitoria  dc  dos  PP.  Dominicos  en  las  islas  Filipinas.  Madrid,  1870- 
1872. 


Bibliography  449 

FONSECA,  FABIAX,  AND  URRUTIA,  CAKLOS  DE 

Historia  general  de  la  real  hacienda.    6  vols.     Mexico,  1845-1853. 

FORD,  WORTHINGTON  CHAUNCEY 

"Public  records  in  our  dependencies,"  in  American  Historical  Asso 
ciation,  Annual  report,  1904,  131-147.  Washington,  1905. 

FOREMAN,  JOHN 

The  Philippine  Islands.     London,  1906. 

GACETA  DE  MANILA,  LA 

Publication  oficial,  diaria,  en  la  gue  aparecian  todos  los  decretos, 
reales  ordenes  y  demus  disposiciones  dictadas  por  la$  autoridades 
en  las  cuestiones  de  gobiemo,  fomento,  hacienda,  estado,  gratia, 
y  justieia,  administration  .  .  .  Fuc  crcada  en  substitution  del 
Boletin  Oficial  por  real  orden  de  18  de  Mayo  de  1860  y  publico 
su  ultimo  numero  el  12  dc  Agosto  de  1898.  Manila,  1860-1898. 

GARCIA  ICAZBALCETA,  JOAQUIN 

Don  Fray  Juan  de  Zumdrraga.     Mexico,  1881. 

GOMEZ  ZAMORA,  MATIAS 

Regio  patronato,  espafiol  e  indiano.    Madrid,  1897. 

GOVANTES,  FELIPE  MAR!A  DE 

Compendia  de  la  historia  de  Filipinas.    Manila,  1877. 
Vida  de  Don  Simon  de  Anda  y  Salazar.    Manila,  1862. 

GRAU  Y  MoxFALc6N,  JUAN 

Memorial  informatorio  al  rey  .  .  .  por  la  .  .  .  ciudad,  de  Manila 
sobrc  las  pretensioncs  de  aquella  ciudad,  c  isla-s,  y  sus  vecinos, 
y  moradores,  y  comcrcio  con  la  Nueva  Espaila.  Madrid,  1637. 

Justificacion  dc  la  conservation,  y  comercio  dc  las  islas  Filipinas. 
Madrid,  1640. 

GRIFFIN,  GEORGE  BUTLER 

"A  brief  bibliographical  sketch  of  the  Recopilacion  de  Indias,"  in 
Historical  Society  of  Southern  California,  Publications,  1887. 
San  Francisco,  1888. 

HACKETT,  CHARLES  WILSON 

"Delimitation  of  political  jurisdictions  in  Spanish  North  America 
to  1535,"  in  The  Hispanic  American  historical  review,  I,  40-69. 

HARTZENBUSCH,  EUGENIO 

Apuntes  para  un  eatdlogo  de  periodicos  Madrileilos.     Madrid,  1894. 

HELPS,  ARTHUR 

The  Spanish  conquest  in  America.  4  vols.  New  York,  1900-1904. 
M.  Oppenheim,  ed.  [First  ed.,  London,  1855-61.] 


450  Bibliography 

HERXAEZ,  FRANCISCO  JAVIER 

Coleccion  de  bulas,  breves  y  otros  documentos  relativos  a  la  Iglc- 

sia  cle  America  y  Filipinos.     2  vols.     Bruselas,  1879. 
Histoire  de  la  persecution  de  deux  saints  evcques  par  les  Jesuites,  .  .  . 

run  Dom  Bernardin  de  Cardenas,  eveque  (In  Paraguay  dans  I'Amer- 

ique    meridionalc,    Vautre    Dom,    Philippe    Pardo,    archevcque    de 

VEglise  de  Manila,   metropolitaine  des   isles  Philippines   dans    les 

Indies  Orientales.     Manila,  1691. 
HUMBOLDT,  ALEXANDER  vox 

Political  essay  on   the   kingdom   of  New   Spain.     4   vols.     London, 

1811. 
Instntccion  quc  los  virreyes  de  Nucva  Espana  dejaron  a  sus  sucesores. 

2  vols.     Mexico,  1873. 
JAGOR,  FEODOR 

Viages  por  Filipinas  traducidas  del  alemnn  por  8.  Vidal  y  Solar. 
Madrid,  1875. 

JUAX   DE  LA  CONCEPCl6x 

See  Concepcion. 
LAFUENTE,  MODESTO 

Historia  general  de  Espana.     25  vols.     Barcelona,   1889-1890. 
LAXNOY,  CHARLES  DE 

L' expansion  ooloniale  du  Portugal  jusqu'  au  debut  du  XIXe  siecle, 
in  Lannoy  and  Vander  Linden,  Histoire  de  I'cxpansion  coloniale 
des  peuples  europeen-s.-    Portugal  et  Espagne.     Bruxelles,  Paris, 
1907. 
LA  PKROUSE,  JEAN  FRAXCOIS  DE  GALAUP 

Voyage  de  La  Perouse  autour  du  nwnde.     Paris,  1797. 

LEA,  HEXRY  CHARLES 

A  history  of  the  inquisition  in  Spain.     4   vols.     New  York,   1906- 

1907. 

The  inquisition  in  the  Spanish  dependencies.     New  York,   1908. 
LEGEXTIL    DE    LA    GALAISIERE,    GUILLAUME    JOSEPH    HYACIXTHE    JEAX 

BAPTISTEI 

Voyage  dans  les  mers  de  I'lnde,  fait  par  ordre  du  roi,  a  Voccasion  du 
passage  de  Venus,  sur  le  disque  de  soleil,  le  6  juin  1761,  d  le  3 
du  meme  mois  1769.  2  vols.  Paris,  1779-1781. 

LEROY,  JAMES  A. 

The  Americans  in  the  Philippines.     2  vols.     Boston  and  New  York, 

1914. 
"The    Philippine    'situado'    from    the    treasury   of    New    Spain,"    in 

The  American  historical  review,  X,  929-932;   XI,  722-723. 


Bibliography  451 

Review:  Blair  and  Robertson  (editors),  The  Philippine  Islands, 
1493-1898,  in  The  American  historical  review,  XI,  681-687; 
XII,  143-145;  912-915. 

LEUOY-BEAULIEU,  PAUL 

De  la  colonization  chcz  les  pcuplcs  mod-ernes.     2  vols.     Paris,  1902. 

LOWERY,    WOODBURY 

The  Spanish  settlements  within  the  present  limits  of  the  United, 
States,  1513-1561.  New  York,  1901. 

MALCOLM,  GEORGE  A. 

The  government  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  its  development  and 
fundamentals.  Rochester,  1916. 

MALLAT  DE  BASSILAU,  JEAN 

Les  Philippines;  histoire,  geographic,  moeurs,  agriculture,  Indus 
trie  ct  commerce  des  colonies  espagnoles  dans  I 'Oceanic.  2 
vols.  Paris,  1846. 

MARICHALAR,  A.,  and  MANRIQUE,  CAYETANO 

Historia  dc  la  legislation  y  rctitaciones  del  derecho  civil  de 
Espafia.  9  vols.  Madrid,  1861-1872. 

MARTINEZ  ALCUBILLA,  MARCELO 

Diccion<ario  de  la  administration  expanola,  peninsular  y  ultra- 
marina.  12  vols.  Madrid,  1868. 

MARTINEZ  DE  ZUNIGA,  JoAQufN 

AH,  historical  view  of  the  Philippine  Islands:  exhibiting  their  dis 
covery,  population,  language,  government,  manners,  customs, 
productions  and  commerce.  Translated  by  John  Mayer.  Lon 
don,  1814. 

Estadismo  de  las  islas  Filipinas,  6  mis  viajes  por  este  pais.  .  .  . 
Publica  csta  obra  por  primera  vez  extensamente  anotada  W.  E. 
Retana.  2  vols.  Madrid,  1893. 

Historia  de  las  islas  Filipinas.     2  vols.     Sampaloc,   1803. 

MAS,     SlNIBALDO    DE 

Informe  sobre   el   estado   dc    las   islas  Filipinas   en   18^2.     Madrid, 

1843. 
MAURTUA,  VICTOR  N. 

Antecedentes  de  la  Recopilacion  de  Indias.     Madrid,   1906. 
MEDINA,  JOSE  TORIBIO 

Bibliografia  espanola  de  las  islas  Filipinas   (1523-1810).     Santiago 

de  Chile,  1897-1898. 

Historia  del  tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  inquisition  en  Chile. 
2  vols.  Santiago  de  Chile,  1890. 


452  Bibliography 

MENDIZABAL,  FRANCISCO 

Invest  igaciones  acerca  del  origen,  historic  y  organization  de  la  real 
chancilleria  de  Valladolid,  su  jurisdiction  y  competencia,  in  Rc- 
vi&ta  de  archives,  bibliotecas  y  museos,  tercera  epoca,  XXX, 
(1914),  62-72;  243-264,  437-452.  Madrid,  1914. 

MENDIETA,  GERONIMO  DE 

Historic,  eclcsidstica  Indiana.     Mexico,  1870. 

MONTEMAYOR  Y   CORDOBA,   JUAN   FRANCISCO 

Sutnarios  de  las  cedulas,   ordenes  y  provisiones  reales   .    . 
hi  Nueva  Espana  y  otras  paries.    Mexico,  1678. 


Y   VlDAL,   JOSE 

El  archipiclago  Filipino  y  las  islas  Marianas,  Carolinas,  y  Palaos; 

su  historia,  geografia  y  estadistica.     Madrid,  1886. 
Historia  general   de  Filipinas   desde  el   descubrimiento   de   dichas 

islas  hasta  nuestros  dias.     3  vols.     Madrid,  1887-1895. 

MORGA,  ANTONIO  DE 

Sucesos  de  las  islas  Filipinas.  Obra  publicada  en  Mejico  el  ailo  de 
1609,  mwvamente  sacada  a  luz  y  anotada  por  Jose  Rizal.  Paris, 
1890.  [First  ed.,  Mexico,  1609.  English  translation  by  Henry 
Stanley,  London,  1868.] 

MOSES,  BERNARD 

South  America  on  the  eve  of  emancipation.    New  York,  1908. 
The  establishment  of  Spanish  rule  in  America.    New  York,  1898. 
The    Spanish    dependencies   in   South    America.     2  vols.      London, 
1914. 

MURILLO  VELARDE,  PEDRO 

Historia  de  la  provincia,  dc  Philipinas  de  la  Compania  de  Jesus. 
Manila,  1749. 

NAVARRETE,  MARTIN  FERNANDEZ  DE 

Coleccion  de  los  viagcs  y  descubrimientos  quc  hicieron  por  mar  los 
Espaiiolcs  desde  fines  del  siglo  xv.  5  vols.  Madrid,  1825-1837. 

New  laws  of  the  Indies  for  the  good  treatment  and  preservation  of 
the  Indians  (1542-1543).  London,  1893. 

Ordcnanza  general  formada  de  orden  de  Su  Majcstad  para  el  gobierno 
e  instruccion  de  intcndentes  subdelegados  y  demds  emplcados  de 
Indias.  Madrid,  1803. 

Ordenanzas  para  el  regimen  y  gobierno  de  la  real  Audicncia  de  Manila 
con  el  reglamento  para  su  secretarla,  aprobada-s  las  primcras  por 
real  dccreto  .  .  .  Manila,  1868. 


Bibliography  453 

PARDO  DE  TAVEKA,  TRTXIDAD  HIPOLITO 

Biblioteca  Filipina.     Washington,  1903. 

Resena  historica  de  Filipinas  desde  su  descubrimiento  hasta  1903. 
Manila,  1906. 

"The  judiciary  of  the  Philippine  Islands,"  in  Census  of  the  Philip 
pine  Islands,  I,  389-410.  Washington,  1905. 

"The  power  of  the  monastic  orders,"  in  Census  of  the  Philippine 
Islands,  I,  340-346.  Washington,  1905. 

PARRAS,  PEDRO  JOSEPH 

Gobierno  de  los  regularcs  dc  la  America.    2  vols.    Madrid,  1783. 

PASTELS,  PABLO 

See  Colin,  Francisco. 

Mision  de  la  compania  de  Jesus  de  Filipinas  en  el  siglo  XIX. 
3  vols.     Barcelona,  1917. 

PEREZ  Y  LOPEZ,  ANTONIO  XAVIER 

Tcatro  de  la  legislation  de  Esparto  e  Indias.  28  vols.  Madrid, 
1791-1798. 

PONS,  FRANCISCO  RAYMOND  JOSEPH  DE 

A  voyage  to  the  eastern  part  of  Tierra  Firma,  or  the  Spanish  Main, 
in  South  America,  during  the  years  1801,  1802,  1803  and  1804. 
Tr.  [from  the  French]  by  an  American  gentleman.  New.  York, 
1806.  [First  ed.,  Paris,  1806.] 

PRESCOTT,  WILLIAM  H. 

History  of  the  conquest  of  Mexico.     Philadelphia,  1890. 
PRIESTLEY,  HERBERT  I. 

Jose  de  Gdlvcz:  visitor-general  of  New  Spain,  1765-1171.  Berkeley, 
1916. 

PUGA,   VASCO   DE 

Provisioncs,  ccdulas,  instrucciones  de  su  magestad  de  esta  Nueva 
Espaiia  (1525-1563).   2  vols.    Mexico,  1878-1879.    [First  ed.,  Mex 
ico,  1563.] 
Real  ordenanza  de  13  de  Octubre  para  el  rcstablicimiento  e  instruction 

de  intendentes  de  provincias  y  excrcitos.     Madrid,  1749. 
Real  ordenanza  para  cl  establicimiento  e  instruccion  de  intendentes  de 
exercito  y  provincia  en  el  virreinato   de  Buenos  Ayres.     Madrid, 
1782. 

Real  ordenanza  para  el  establicimiento  y  instruccion  de  intendentes  de 
exercito  y  provincia  en  el  reino  de  la  Nueva  Espafla.  Madrid,  1786. 

Reales  ordenanzas  form<adas  per  el  superior  gobierno  y  real  acuerdo  de 
estas  islas  en  26  de  Febrero  de  1768.  Para  el  buen  gobicrno  de  los 


454  Bibliography 

gob  crnad  ores,   corrcgidores  y  alcaldes   may  ores   de   sus  provincias. 
Manila,  1834. 

Reoopilacion   de   leycs   de    los   reinos  de   las   Indias.      5th    ed.,    2   vols. 

Madrid,  1841.    [1st  ed.,  4  vols.,  Madrid,  1681;   2d  ed.,  4  vols.,  Madrid, 

1754;  3d  ed.,  4  vols.,  Madrid,  1774;  4th  ed.,  3  vols.,  Madrid,  1791.] 
RETANA,  WENCESLAO  EMELIO 

Catdlogo  abreviado  de  la  bibliotcca  Filipina.     Madrid,  1898. 
RICAFORT,  MARIANO 

Reglamento  para  establecer  la  comision   de  policia,  ordenada  con 
acuerdo  de  la,  real  audiencia  de  las  islas  Filipinas.     Sampaloc, 
1826. 
ROBERTSON,  JAMES  ALEXANDER 

Bibliography  of  the  Philippine  Islands.     Cleveland,  1908. 

"Catholicism  in  the  Philippines,"  in  The  Catholic  historical  revieio, 
III,  375-391. 

"Legaspi  and  Philippine  colonization,"  in  American  Historical  Asso 
ciation,  Annual  report,  1907,  I,  143-156.  Washington,  1908. 

"Notes  on  the  archives  of  the  Philippines,"  in  American  Historical 
Association,  Annual  report,  1910.  423-425.  Washington,  1912. 

"The  social  structure  of,  and  idea  of  law  among,  early  Philippine 
peoples;  and  a  recently-discovered  pre-hispanic  criminal  code  of 
the  Philippine  Islands,"  in  The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history  (Steph 
ens  and  Bolton,  editors),  160-191.  New  York,  1917. 

ROBERTSON,  WILLIAM 

The    history    of    the    discovery   and   settlement    of    America.      New 

York,  1858.      [First  ed.,  London,  1777.] 
RODRIGUEZ  BERRIZ,  MIGUEL 

Diccionario   de   la,  administracion   de  Filipinas.     17   vols.      Manila, 

1887. 
RODRIGUEZ  SAN  PEDRO,  JOAQUIN 

Legislacion  ultranwrina,  publicada  con  la  colaboracion  de  Chorot, 
Pierre,  y  Gonzalcs  Jwnguitu.  16  vols.  Madrid,  1865-1869. 

ROSCHER,    WlLHELM    GEORG    FRIEDRICH 

The  Spanish  colonial  system.     E.  G.  Bourne,  ed.     New  York,  1904. 
SALAZAR,  DOMINGO  DE 

Carta  relacion  de  las  cosas  de  la  China  y  de  los  Chinos  del  Parian 
de  Manila,  enviada  al  rey  Felipe  II  desdc  Manila  el  24  de  Junio 
de  1590.     Madrid,  1897. 
SALAZAR,  VICENTE  DE 

Historia  de  la  provincia  de  santissimo  rosario  de  PJiilipinas. 
Manila,  1742. 


Bibliography 

SAN  AGUSTIN,  GASPAR  DE 

Conquistas  de  las  isla-s  Filipinos.     Madrid,  1698. 

SAX  AXTOXIO,  JUAX  FRANCISCO  DE 

Chronicas  de  la  apostolica  provincia  de  San  Gregorio  de  religiosos 
descalzos  de  N.  8.  P.  8.  Francisco  en  las  iskis  Philipinas,  China, 
Japon.  3  vols.  Manila,  1738-1744. 

SAXTA  CRUZ,  BALTASAR  DE 

Tomo  segundo  de  la  historia  de  la  provincia  de  Santo  Rosario  de 
Filipinas.  Zaragoza,  1693. 

SCHMIDT,  GUSTAVUS 

The  civil  law  of  Spain  and  Mexico.    New  Orleans,  1851. 

SCHURZ,  WILLIAM  LYTLE 

"The  Chinese  in  the  Philippines,"  in  The  Pacific  Ocean  in   history 

(Stephens  and  Bolton,  editors),  214-222.     New  York,  1917. 
"The    Manila    galleon    and    California,"    in    The    Southwestern    his 
torical  quarterly,  XXI,  107-126. 

SHEPHERD,  WILLIAM  R. 

Guide  to  the  materials  for  the  history  of  the  United  States  in  Span 
ish  archives.     Washington,  1907. 
SMITH,  DOXALD  EUGENE 

The  viceroy  of  New  Spain.     Berkeley,  1913. 

Sobre  una  reseila  historica  de  Filipinas.     Coleccion  de  articulos   que 

han  visto   la  luz  piiblica   .    .    .    en  refutacion   de   los   oalumniosos 

erores  que  el  Doctor  T.  H.  Pardo  de  Tavera  ha   escrito  contra   lo.fi 

fienemeritas  ordencs  rcligiosas  de  Filipinas  en  su  reseila  hislnrica, 

impresa  en  Manila.     Manila,  1906. 
SOLORZAXO  PEREIRA,  JUAX  DE 

Politica  Indiana.    Madrid,  1776.     [First  ed.,  Madrid,  1647.] 
Superior  decreto  sobre  las  funciones  que  debe  llenar  el  Sr.  Intendcnte 

de  Manila   tocamte   al   tesoro   agricultural   e   industrial    del    reino. 

Manila,  1829. 
STEPHEXS,  H.  M.,  AND  BOLTOX,  H.  E.    (editors) 

The  Pacific  Ocean  in  history.    New  York,  1917. 
ULLOA,  AXTOXIO  DE,  and  JUAN  Y  SAXTACILLA,  JORGE 

Noticias  secretas  de  America.    Londres,  1826.     [Abridged  and  trans 
lated  into  English,  Boston,  1851.  J 
UXITED  STATES,  LIBRARY  OF  CONGRESS 

Bibliography  of  the  Philippine  Islands:  a  list  of  books  with  refer 
ences  to  periodicals  on  the  Philippine  Islands  in  the  Library  of 
Congress.  Washington,  1903. 


456  Bibliography 

VANDER  LINDEN,  HERMAN 

L'expansion  colonialc  de  VEspagne  jusqu'au  debut  du  XIXe  siecle, 
in  Lannoy  and  Vander  Linden,  Histoire  d-e  V expansion  coloniale 
des  peuples  europeens:  Portugal   et  Espagne.     Bruxelles,   Paris, 
1907. 
VEITIA  LINAJE,  JOSEPH  DE 

Norte  de  la  contratacion  de  las  Indias  Octidentalcs.     Seville,  1672. 
VINDEL,  PEDRO 

BibUoteca  oriental  .   .   .  relativas  a  Filipinas,  Japon,  China  y  otras 

partes  de  Asia  y  Oceania.       Madrid,  1911. 
WORCESTER,  DEAN  CONANT 

The  Philippines,  past  and  present.    2  vols.     New  York,  1914. 
ZAMORA  Y  CORONADO,  JOSE  MARIA 

Apendice  al  registro  de  legislation  ultramarina.    Havana,  1835. 
Biblioteca  de  legislation  ultramarina  en  forma  de  dictionario  alfa- 
bftioo.     1  vols.     Madrid,  1844-1849. 

ZUNIGA 

See  Martinez  de  Zuniga,  Joaquin. 


MANUSCRIPT    MATERIALS    FROM    THE    ARCHIVE    OF    THE    INDIES1 

I.  Audiencia  de  Filipinos. 

(a)  Ranw  Secular. 

1584-1700:     Consultas  originales  correspondientes  de  esta  Audiencia. 
67-6-3.2 


i  This  legajo  list  was  obtained  from  the  index  of  the  collection  of 
manuscripts  in  the  section  known  as  Audiencia  de  Filipinas,  of  the 
Archive  of  the  Indies  in  Seville.  The  aim  is  only  to  present  legajos 
which  contain  material  on  the  audiencia.  A  more  complete  list  cover 
ing  all  the  Philippine  material  in  this  depository  may  be  found  in 
Blair  and  Robertson,  LIII. 

-  The  above  system  of  reference  to  documents  in  the  Archive  of  the 
Indies  is  used  universally,  and  it  has  been  employed  consistently  in 
this  treatise.  The  manuscripts  are  wrapped  and  tied  in  bundles 
(legajos),  which,  in  turn,  are  to  be  found  in  large  cases  (estantes) , 
and  the  shelves  (cajones)  of  the  cases  are  numbered.  The  meaning  of 
the  above  reference  therefore  is  Estantc  6'8.  Cajon  G,  Legajo  3,  indi 
cating  that  legajo  number  3  is  to  be  found  on  Shelf  6  of  Case  68  of  the 
Archive.  A  legajo  contains  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,000  pages  of 
hand-written  manuscript.  The  documents  may  be  originals,  certified 
copies  or  ordinary  drafts  or  duplicates.  They  are  supposed  to  be 
grouped  according  to  subject-matter,  and  usually  the  materials  in  a 
given  oa.jon  deal  with  a  phase  of  the  same  question.  Legajos  in  a 
given  cajon  and  manuscripts  in  a  given  legajo,  roughly  speaking,  are 


Bibliography  457 

1568-1808:  Registros  de  oficios  y  partes:  reales  ordenes  dirigidas 
a  las  autoridades  y  particulares  de  la  audiencia.  105-2-11  to  18.  8 
legajos. 

1594-1698:  Decretos  originales  correspondientes  a  dicha  audiencia. 
€7-6-4. 

1600-1700:  Peticiones  y  memoriales  sueltos  decretados  por  el  Con- 
sejo.  67-6-5. 

1567-1699:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  Gobr.  de  Filipinas  vistos  en  el 
Consejo.  67-6-6  to  17.  12  legajos. 

1583-1699:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  presidente  y  oidores  de  esta 
audiencia  vistos  en  el  Consejo.  67-6-18  to  26.  7  legajos. 

1564-1699:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  los  oficiales  reales  de  Filipinas 
vistos  en  el  Consejo.  67-6-29  to  33.  5  legajos. 

1565-1650:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  personas  seculares  de  dicha 
audiencia.  67-6-34  to  42.  9  legajos. 

1629-1791:  Reales  cedulas,  mercedes  y  informes  sobre  encomiendas. 
105-2-24. 

1651-1699:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  personas  seculares  de  esta 
audiencia.  68-1-1  to  2.  2  legajos. 

1616-1700:  Confirmaciones  de  encomiendas  de  Indies.  68-1-5  to  16. 
12  legajos. 

1572-1691:  Autos  y  otros  papeles  del  Gobernador  de  Filipinas  Don 
Juan  de  Silva  contra  los  oficiales  reales  sobre  use  excesivo  de  sus 
oficios.  68-1-21. 

1670:  Bxpediente  formado  de  los  procedimientos  de  Don  Francisco 
Samaniego  Tuesta,  Oidor  de  la  Audiencia  de  Manila.  68-1-23. 

1615-1837:     Materias  gubernativas.     105-3-12. 

1608-1762:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  presidente  y  oidores  de  aquella 
audiencia.  68-4-12  to  35.  24  legajos. 

1622-1825:  Reales  cedillas,  nombramientos  y  informes  acerca  del 
presidente,  oidores  y  subalternos  de  la  audiencia.  106-2-15. 

1651-1850:  Duplicados  de  gobernadores  de  Filipinas.  105-4-7  to 
24;  105-5-1  to  24;  105-6-1  to  24;  105-7-1  to  24;  106-1-1  to  27;  106-2-1 
to  14.  Ill  legajos. 

1670-1831:     Inventario   de  cedulas  y  consultas.     105-2-5. 

1671-1756:  Indices  de  la  correspondent  del  gobor.,  auda.,  oficiales 
reales  y  sugetos  particulares  del  distrito  de  aquella  real  audiencia. 
€8-2-30. 


arranged  chronologically,  though  in  many  cases  they  have  lost  their 
original  order  owing  to  careless  handling.  This  description  is  sufficient 
to  identify  any  document  to  which  this  classification  is  applied,  as 
these  numbers  are  not  duplicated,  though  often  the  documents  are, 
and  copies  of  the  same  manuscript  may  be  found  in  different  cajones. 


458  Bibliography 

1675-1765:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  gobernador  de  Filipinas.  68- 
3-4  to  33  and  68-4-1  to  11.  40  legajos. 

1684-1744:    Expediente  sobre  la  expulsion  de  los  Sangleyes.    68-5-16. 

1685-1688:  Testimonies  de  autos  obrados  en  Acapulco,  Mejico  y 
Filipinas,  en  razon  de  descubrir  los  bienes  del  gobernador  de  Manila, 
Don  Juan  de  Vargas  Hurtado  y  su  cunado  Don  Francisco  Guerrero 
Ardila.  68-1-24. 

1687-1690:  Testimonies  de  autos  sobre  la  rebelion,  conversion  y 
expulsion  de  los  Sangleyes  de  China.  68-1-25. 

1699-1760:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  Virrey  de  Nueva  Espafia  que 
tratan  de  asuntos  de  Filipinas.  68-3-1  to  3.  3  legajos. 

1703-1850:  Duplicados  del  presidente  y  oidores  de  la  Audiencia  de 
Filipinas.  106-2-17  to  25;  106-3-1  to  28;  106-4-1  to  21.  58  legajos. 

1711-1722:  Expte.  sobre  la  restitucion  de  las  plazas  de  oidores  de  la 
Audiencia  de  Manila  a  Don  Gregorio  Manuel  de  Villa  y  Don  Jose  An 
tonio  Pabon;  y  lo  resuelto  contra  Don  Jose  Torralba,  oidor  de  la  misma 
audiencia.  68-5-30  to  31.  2  legajos. 

1715-1727:  Expte.  sobre  los  procedimientos  del  Gobr.  Don  Fernando 
Bustillo  Bustamante  y  sobre  la  muerte  violenta  que  sufrio  dicho 
gobernador  y  su  hijo.  68-6-1  to  5.  5  legajos. 

1718-1784:  Expte.  sobre  competencia  entre  el  gobernador  y  au 
diencia  sobre  remision  a  Espana  bajo  partida  de  registro  de  Don  Diego 
Martinez  de  Araque,  regente  de  la  misma  y  otros  ministros.  106-5-1 
to  3.  3  legajos. 

1728-1829:  Remisiones  al  consejo,  camara  y  ministros.  105-3-10 
to  11.  2  legajos. 

1729-1748:  Gobiernos  de  los  capitanes  generales,  Marques  de  Torre 
Campo,  Don  Fernandez  Valdes  Tamon,  Don  Gaspar  de  la  Torre,  e 
interino  del  Obispo  de  Nueva  Segovia.  105-3-25. 

1740:  Duplicados  de  la  causa  criminal  y  prision  de  Don  Cristobal 
Perez  de  Arroyo,  fiscal  de  aquella  audiencia,  remitido  por  el  gobernador. 
106-4-23  to  28.  6  legajos. 

1746-1767:  Gobierno  del  capitan-general,  Marques  de  Obando.  105- 
3-26. 

1752-1762:  Gobiernos  de  los  capitanes-generales,  Don  Pedro  Manuel 
de  Arandfa  y  Don  Jose  de  Crispo.  105-4-1. 

1753:  Correspondencia  del  Gobernador  Marques  de  Obando,  dando 
noticias  del  estado  de  aquellas  Islas.  105-4-2. 

1755-1789:  Expediente  sobre  expulsion  de  los  Sangleyes  6  Chinos 
Catolicos  por  delitos  de  infidelidad  y  otros  durante  la  ocupacion  de  la 
plaza  por  los  Ingleses.  107-2-27  to  30.  4  legajos. 

1759-1821:  Correspondencia  con  gobernadores.  105-4-3  to  4.  2 
legajos. 


Bibliography  459 

1762-1766:  Expediente  de  la  reclamacion  hecha  por  Inglaterra  de 
dos  miliones  de  pesos  capitulados  en  la  toma  de  la  plaza  de  Manila. 
107-3-1  to  2.  2  legajos. 

1765-1824:  Informes  sobre  materias  gubernativas.  105-3-13  to  14. 
2  legajos. 

1769-1780:  Gobierno  del  Capitan-General  Don  Simon  de  Anda. 
105-4-5. 

1776-1787:  Gobierno  de  los  Capitanes-Generales  Don  Jose  Vazco 
y  Vargas  y  Don  Felipe  Veringuer  de  Marquina.  105-4-6. 

1691-1819:  Informe  sobre  el  ramo  de  tributes  y  renumeracion  de 
Indios.  108-1-9. 

1682:      Materias  de  real  hacienda.     107-3-12. 

1733-1824:      Materias  gubernativas  de  la  real  hacienda.     107-3-11. 

1751-1833:     Expte.  sobre  bienes  de  difuntos.     107-3-9. 

1755-1830:  Cuentas  de  tributes,  contribucion  directa  y  ramo  a  cargo 
de  los  corregidores  y  alcaldes  mayores.  108-1-10  to  13.  4  legajos. 

1759-1833:  Cuentas  de  real  hacienda.  107-7-25  to  32;  108-1-1  to 
8.  16  legajos. 

1762-1765:  Expte.  relative  al  sitio  y  toma  de  Manila  por  los  In- 
gleses.  107-3-3  to  6.  4  legajos. 

1773-1821:  Expedientes  de  provisiones  de  empleos  de  real  hacienda. 
107-3-13  to  14.  2  legajos. 

1783:  Expte.  sobre  avaluo  de  la  alcaiceria  de  San  Fernando,  manejo, 
ejercicio  y  facultades  de  su  castellano  y  lo  actuado  contra  Don  Fer 
nando  de  Mier  y  Noriega  que  fue  el  primero.  107-3-8. 

1787-1849:  Duplicados  de  superintendentes  e  intendentes  de  ejercito 
y  real  hacienda.  107-5-15  to  31;  107-6-1  to  31;  107-7-1  to  21.  69 
iegajos. 

1784-1787:  Expediente  sobre  establicimiento  de  intendencias  y  sub- 
intendencias.  107-5-14. 

1794:  Expte.  de  Don  Frco.  Fernandez  Cendero,  Alcalde  Mayor  y 
Capitan  de  Guerra  de  la  provincia  de  Ilocos,  sobre  su  residencia  pen- 
diente  de  informe  de  la  audiencia.  106-5-4. 

(b)  Ramo  Eclesidstico. 

1579-1697:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  Arzobispo  de  Manila.  68-1-32 
and  33.  2  legajos. 

1569-1700:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  los  misioneros  de  Filipinas. 
68-1-37  to  41.  5  legajos. 

1570-1696:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  personas  eclesiasticas  de  Fili 
pinas.  68-1-42  to  44.  3  legajos. 

1586-1700:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  cabildo  eclesiastico  de  Fili 
pinas.  68-1-35  to  36.  2  legajos. 


460  Bibliography 

1597-1698:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  los  obispos  sufraganeos  de 
Manila,  a  saber,  Nueva  Segovia,  Nueva  Caceres,  Santissimo  Nombre  de 
Jesus  o  Cebu.  68-1-34. 

1626-1795:     Reales  cedulas  y  informes  sobre  diezmos.    108-5-24. 

1681-1689:  Testimonies  de  autos  respectivos  al  Arzobispo  de  Manila 
y  otros.  68-2-1  to  2.  2  legajos. 

1692:  Expte.  sobre  la  extrafieza  y  prision  del  Arzobispo  de  Manila 
Don  Fray  Felipe  Pardo  y  discordias  ocuridas  entre  las  religiones  de 
Santo  Domingo  y  la  Compania  de  Jesus.  68-2-4  to  5.  2  legajos. 

1702-1832:  Consultas  de  materias  y  provisiones  eclesiasticas.  108- 
5-21  to  22.  2  legajos. 

1726-1815:  Reales  cedulas  y  informes  sobre  medias  anatas  y 
mesadas  eclesiasticas.  108-5-19. 

1751:  El  Gobernador  Marques  de  Obando  da  cuenta  con  testimonio 
de  los  informes  que  se  ban  podido  adquirir  sobre  el  numero  de  relig- 
iosos  que  hay  en  aquellas  islas  y  de  los  que  necesitan  para  la  reduccion 
de  los  indios  gentiles.  108-6-27  to  28.  2  legajos. 

1760:  Expte.  del  Obispo  de  Cebu,  gobernador  interino  de  aquellas 
Yslas  y  el  Arzobispo  de  Manila  sobre  en  cual  de  los  dos  habia  de  recaer 
el  mando  de  ellas.  108-6-29. 

1762:  Expte.  sobre  embargo  de  bienes  de  Don  Santiago  de  Orendain 
y  su  mujer  Dona  Maria  Dominga  Arraez,  vecinos  de  Manila,  por  deudas 
al  ramo  de  bulas  de  la  Cruzada  y  otros  excesos.  108-7-18  to  19.  2 
legajos. 

1769:  Pliegos  remitidos  al  Consejo  por  el  arzobispo  para  S.  S.  sobre 
el  estado  de  curato  y  fundamentos  de  los  regulares  para  eximirse  de  la 
jurisdiccion  del  diocesano.  108-6-5  to  6.  2  legajos. 

1772:  Expte.  sobre  la  remocion  de  los  religiosos  de  S.  Agustin  de 
las  doctrinas  de  la  Provincia  de  Pampanga,  secularizacion  de  curatos 
de  aquellas  Yslas  y  sujecion  de  las  relig-iones  al  real  patronato  y  visita 
de  los  ordinaries.  108-6-31  to  35.  5  legajos. 

1777:  Expte.  sobre  competencia  entre  el  Arzobispo  de  Manila, 
Obispo  Sufragano  de  Nueva  Caceres,  vice-patrono  real  y  fiscal  de  la 
real  audiencia,  por  disposicion  al  presbitero  Don  Vicente  Ygnacio  de 
Arroyo  del  curato  de  Santa  Cruz.  108-6-36. 

1778:  Expte.  sobre  aprobacion  de  las  ordenanzas  de  la  Casa  de 
Misericordia  de  Manila  e  el  permiso  concedido  para  que  esta  pueda 
remitir  sus  cuentas  sin  intervencion  de  la  real  audiencia.  106-5-8. 

1778:  Expte.  de  la  real  audiencia  sobre  el  espolio  del  Arzobispo 
Don  Manuel  Antonio  Rojo  y  demandas  introducidas  contra  el.  108-7-1 
to  2.  2  legajos. 

1780:  Cuatro  exptes.  unidos  sobre  pago  de  diezmo  por  los  reli 
giones  y  naturales  de  aquellas  YsJas,  sin  embargo  de  no  estar  en  prac- 
tica  .  ,  108-7-3. 


Bibliography  461 

II.     Secrctaria  de  Nueva  Espaila. 

(a)  Ramo  Secular  y  Eclesidstico. 

1630-1759:     Consultas  y  decretos  originales.    68-2-8  to  12.    5  legajos. 

1671-1756:  Indices  de  la  correspondencia  del  gobernador,  au- 
diencia,  oficiales  reales  y  sugetos  particulares  del  distrito  de  aquella 
audiencia.  68-2-31. 

(b)  Ramo  Secular. 

1724:  Expte.  sobre  el  registro  del  galeon  de  Filipinas  nombrado  el 
Santo  Cristo  de  Burgos  que  hizo  viage  el  afio  1723  desde  el  puerto  de 
Cavite  al  de  Acapulco.  68-6-11. 

1728-1732:  Expte.  de  la  Hermandad  de  la  Misericordia  de  Manila 
sobre  amplificacion  de  sus  facultades  y  privilegios.  68-6-16. 

1735-1741:  Expte.  sobre  los  162,992  pesos  que  se  sacaron  del 
comercio.  68-6-23. 

1739-1746:  Testimonio  de  autos  originados  sobre  la  visita  y  com- 
posicion  de  tierras  encargadas  al  Oidor  Don  Pedro  Calderon,  del  Con- 
sejo  de  S.  M.  68-6-26. 

1740-1744:  Expte.  sobre  la  prision  y  causa  criminal  seguida  contra 
Don  Cristobal  Perez  de  Arroyo,  fiscal  de  la  Audiencia  de  Manila.  68- 
6-28  to  31.  4  legajos. 

1741-1751:  Exptes.  y  autos  sobre  la  sublevacion  de  los  pueblos 
tagalos  y  otros  por  vejaciones  recibidas  de  los  religiosos  de  Santo 
Domingo  y  San  Agustln,  pacificados  por  el  Oidor  Pedro  Calderon. 
68-6-40  to  44.  5  legajos. 

1743:  Testimonio  de  autos  de  la  visita  que  hizo  el  Oidor  Don  Jose 
Ygnacio  de  Arzadun,  remitidos  por  la  Audiencia  de  Manila.  68-3-32 
to  35.  4  legajos. 

1743-1753:  Exptes.  sobre  la  presa  que  hicieron  los  Ingleses  del 
navio  Covadonga  y  libertad  de  los  oficiales  que  mandaba  .  .  .  68-6-38 
to  39.  2  legajos. 

1745-1755:  Exptes.  del  subdelegado  Don  Pedro  Calderon  de  la  Barca 
sobre  tierras.  68-6-45. 

1752-1755:  Expte.  sobre  las  altercaciones  sufridas  por  el  comercio 
de  Filipinas  a  causa  de  las  novedades  introducidas  por  el  Gobernador 
Marques  de  Obando.  68-6-50-51.  2  legajos. 

1756-1758:  Expte.  sobre  los  excesos  cometidos  por  el  Gobernador 
Don  Pedro  Manuel  de  Arandia.  68-6-53. 

1644-1760:  Provisiones  de  plazas  togados  de  la  Audiencia  de  Manila. 
69-1-1. 

1654-1745:  Testimonios  de  autos  que  se  hallaron  sin  cartas  de 
remision  entre  los  papeles  del  distrito  de  la  Audiencia  de  Manila. 
69-1-13  to  17.  5  legajos. 


462  Bibliography 

(c)  Ramo  Eclesiastico. 

1660-1761:  Cartas  y  expedientes  de  personas  eclesiasticas  del  dis- 
trito  de  aquella  audiencia.  69-1-24  to  29.  6  legajos. 

1604-1696:  Expedientes  sobre  la  visita  de  los  religiosos  por  los 
ordinaries.  69-1-30  to  32.  3  legajos. 

1691-1696:  Exptes.  sobre  que  en  las  vacantes  del  arzobispado  de 
Manila,  gobierne  el  cabildo  eclesiastico.  69-1-34. 

1698-1704:  Expediente  sobre  la  resistencia  hecha  por  las  religiones 
a  presentar  sus  tftulos  de  las  tierras  y  estancias.  69-1-37. 

1702-1761:  Cartas  y  expedientes  del  Arzobispo  de  Manila.  69-1-18 
to  20.  3  legajos. 

1704-1719:  Expte.  sobre  causa  formada  a  Fray  Bartolome  Marron, 
de  la  Orden  de  Predicadores,  por  un  manifiesto  esto  que  imprimio  y 
publico  sobre  varios  puntos  de  real  patronato.  69-1-38. 

1710-1730:  Expte.  sobre  corregir  las  ordenanzas  del  Colegio  Semi- 
nario  de  San  Felipe,  etc.  69-1-40. 

1730-1740:  Tres  testimonios  de  autos  pertenecientes  a  un  expe- 
diente  .  .  .  del  cabildo  eclesiastico  de  Manila,  sobre  organizacion  de 
boletas.  69-2-1. 

1737-1746:  Expte.  sobre  ereccion  de  un  seminario  para  la  edu- 
cacion  de  religiosos  misioneros  de  la  Orden  de  San  Agustin.  69-2-3. 


INDEX* 


Acapulco,  67  note  42,  76-77,  77 
note  57,  174. 

Acuerdo,  23,  91,  91  note  37,  126, 
129  note  27,  147,  162,  164,  189, 
190,  195-196,  199,  200,  208,  210, 
211,  213-220,  225,  240ff.,  252- 
254,  269,  287,  293,  299,  301,  302, 
315,  367,  375,  376,  387,  390,  400, 
403,  427,  435;  development  of, 
in  judicial  matters,  214-215,  in 
governmental  and  administra 
tive  matters,  215,  in  ecclesiasti 
cal  matters,  367;  autos  acor- 
dados.  215-216;  influence  of, 
in  reform  measures  (Constitu 
tion  of  1812,  government  of 
the  intendancy,  etc.),  217;  ad 
ministrative  action  independ 
ent  of  governor,  217-218,  evil 
effects  of,  218;  loss  of  power, 
219-220. 

Acuerdo  de  hacienda,  24,  52,  60. 

Acuiia,  see  Bravo  de  Acufia. 

Ad  interim,  administration,  304- 
361;  laws  authorizing,  305, 
310-314;  history  of,  in  South 
America,  305-308,  in  New 
Spain,  308-312,  in  Philippines, 
312-314,  316-338;  laws  regard 
ing  in  the  Recopilacion,  314- 
316;  failure  of  the  audiencia, 
337-338,  358-359,  361;  failure 
of  the  church,  359-360;  plan  of 
succession,  356-358.  See  also 
Audiencia  of  Manila;  Lima; 
Mexico;  Peru. 

Adelantado,  11  note  6,  162  note  3. 

Administracion,  Consejo  de,  220, 
220  note  80. 


*Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Hist.,  vol.  9. 


Agriculture  in  the  Philippines, 
committee  of  audiencia 
charged  with  encouragement 
of,  186. 

Aguilar  y  Ponce  de  Leon,  Rafael, 
governor,  142ft'.,  142  note  60, 
300,  396  note  85. 

Albay,  382. 

Aleabala,  44,  44  note  19,  162. 

Alcalde,  9,  10  note  3,  11  note  6; 
judges  with  criminal  jurisdic 
tion  in  Lima  and  Mexico,  18. 

Alcalde  del  crimen,  16  note  20, 
86,  86  note  11,  88,  203;  author 
ized  to  try  cases  of  strangers, 
114. 

Alcalde  del  Parian,  248,  248  note 
45,  250. 

Alcalde  mayor,  53ff.,  100, 116,  135, 
157,  196,  218,  282,  287,  300,  309 
note  12,  346-347,  381,  396  note 
85,  417;  qualifications,  powers, 
duties,  11,  26-30,  218;  in  the 
Philippines,  33;  supervision 
over  cncomendcros,  53;  con 
duct  toward  Indians,  53,  212; 
jurisdiction,  86,  116;  residen- 
cia,  129,  148-149,  152-155;  ad 
ministration  of  estates,  174; 
method  of  appointment,  200, 
201,  202;  charged  with  trial  of 
Indian  cases,  212;  regulations 
of  acuerdo  concerning,  215;  su 
pervision  of  collection  of  ec 
clesiastical  tithes,  392  note  72. 

Alcalde  ordinario.  jurisdiction, 
26,  30,  71,  86,  116,  207,  237, 
248;  in  the  Philippines,  33-34; 
residencia,  129. 


[4G3] 


Alcaraz,  Andres  de,  oidor.  245, 
246  note  40,  321-322. 

Alguacll,  9,  54. 

Almansa,  Pedro  de,  oidor,  318, 
318  note  32. 

Almojarifazgo,  44,  45  note  19,  61, 
162,  182,  335  note  64. 

Alzadas,  tribunal  de,  112  note  73. 

Amparan,  Augustin  de,  regent, 
141ff. 

Anda  y  Salazar,  Simon  de,  oidor 
and  governor,  15  note  18,  138 
notes  53,  54,  175  note  40,  228 
note  2,  246-247,  289,  289  note 
46,  343ff.,  343  note  76,  345  wo*e 
87,  347  note  89,  356  wofe  104, 
360,  363,  369  note  1,  428,  443; 
assumption  of  government, 
347-356;  residencia,  354,  356. 

Antioch,  Patriarch  of,  278. 

Appointment,  power  of,  302,  303, 
315,  316,  323. 

Appointments,  ecclesiastical,  374, 
374  note  25,  375,  377. 

Arandia,  Santisteban,  Pedro 
Manuel  de,  139  note  54,  228 
note  2,  341,  342,  343. 

Arce,  Pedro  de,  Bishop  of  Cebii, 
376. 

Arevalo,  35  note  4. 

Arrechedera,  Juan  de,  bishop  and 
governor,  340,  341. 

Arribadas,  Juez  de,  174,  175  note 
40,  181. 

Asesor,  72,  97  note  46,  132,  154, 
166,  167ff.,  209,  209  note  50, 
218  note  78,  229  note  18,  283, 
285,  317,  342;  de  Santa  Cru- 
zada,  162. 

Asylum,  right  of,  411,  411  note 
5,  426,  427. 

Audiencia,  integral  part  of  ad 
ministrative  system,  1,  31; 
three  classes  of,  powers  and 
duties,  21-22;  magistrates  of, 
21  note  32,  qualifications,  120; 
basis  of,  83-94,  276;  relation 
to  council  of  the  Indies,  92, 


104;  purpose,  260,  292;  abuses 
of,  285,  287  notes  43,  44,  322- 
330;  historical  development  of 
powers,  296-297;  succession  of, 
310-314;  of  South  America, 
307-308. 

Audiencia,  colonial  (Royal), 
creation,  jurisdiction,  organ 
ization,  10-12,  13,  list  of,  16- 
17;  early  history,  18-22. 
modeled  on  audiencias  of 
Granada  and  Valladolid,  19; 
compared  to  those  in  Spain, 
22-31;  magistrates,  func 
tions  of,  24;  duties  of  gov 
ernor  as  president  of,  208- 
211;  office  of  regent  of,  211. 

Audiencia  of  Manila,  17;  terri 
torial  jurisdiction,  20;  condi 
tions  of  establishment,  32-47; 
opposition  to,  47-48;  estab 
lished,  48;  provisions  of  law 
of  establishment,  49-55;  presi 
dent  of,  55;  difficulties,  56-70; 
arguments  for  abolishment, 
68-70;  breakdown  of  first  audi- 
encia,  71;  ad  interim  govern 
ment,  71-78;  restoration,  78- 
79,  96-98;  inauguration  of  new 
audiencia,  80-82;  appointive 
power,  199-202,  204;  method  of 
appointment  to,  202;  oversight 
of  qualifications  of  appointees, 
203. 

Ad  interim  rule,  laws  on,  312- 
314;  duties  and  conduct  pre 
scribed,  314-315;  types  of 
powers,  315-316;  history  of, 
316-338;  failure  of,  337-338, 
358-359,  361. 

Administrative  and  semi-judi 
cial  functions,  160-192;  the 
senior  magistrate,  161-162; 
the  asesor  of  the  Santa  Cru- 
zada,  162;  the  junta  ordi- 
naria,  162;  supervision  over 
matters  of  church  finance, 
164-165;  magistrates  de 
prived  of  commissions,  169; 
administration  of  estates, 
170;  general  supervision 


[464] 


Index 


over  financial  affairs,  181- 
182;  miscellaneous  duties  as 
representative  of  the  King, 
183;  responsible  for  execu 
tion  of  ccdulas  and  decrees, 
183-184;  census  statistics, 
185;  sanitary  matters,  186; 
agriculture  and  commerce, 
186;  expense  of  inaugura 
tion  ceremonies  of  the  gov 
ernor,  187;  inspection,  publi 
cation  and  censorship  of 
books,  187-191;  keeping  of 
the  archives,  191. 
Judicial  functions,  civil  and 
criminal,  84-120 ;  appellate 
jurisdiction,  84,  101-102,  119, 
over  Indians,  100-103,  over 
religious,  104,  185,  over 
judges  of  first  instance,  157; 
suits  involving  encomiendas, 
108-110;  final  jurisdiction, 
91,  112,  113,  118,  119;  power 
to  pronounce  sentence  of  ex 
ile,  212;  advisory  power, 
213;  development  of,  in  the 
acuerdo,  214-215;  residencia, 
121-159,  jurisdiction  over, 
127,  148-149,  156-159;  court 
of  appeal  in,  126,  132-134, 
147;  judges  of,  131,  135,  145, 
146;  method  of  procedure, 
129-131,  150-152.  See  also 
Oidores. 

Military  functions,  judicial, 
and  administrative,  230- 
231;  members  of  military 
tribunal  designated  by  gov 
ernor,  233,  237-239;  advisory 
capacity  (to  governor),  239- 
241,  243-244,  (to  king),  242- 
244;  assumption  of  govern 
ment,  244-247;  secondary 
position  in  government  of 
Chinese,  249-251,  253,  254; 
jurisdiction  in  military  af 
fairs,  255-258,  317-319,  320, 
.-328,  331-332. 

Audiencia  of  Manila  in  relation 
to  the  Church,  362,  409,  410. 
Functions     in     ecclesiastical 
affairs:    ultimate  local  au 


thority  in  enforcing  laws 
of  royal  patronage,  363- 
364,  370;  right  of  opposed 
by  church,  368-371;  au 
thority  shared  with  vicepa- 
tron,  365-366,  368-370;  two 
kinds  of  ecclesiastical 
powers,  executive  and  ju 
dicial,  366;  historical  de 
velopment  of,  367. 
Executive  powers:  examina 
tion  of  resolutions  of  coun 
cils,  synods,  371,  of  papal 
bulls,  briefs,  etc.,  372;  en 
forcement  of  law  forbid 
ding  laymen  to  trade  with 
priests,  supervision  over 
prelates  and  provincials, 
assistance  of  missionaries, 
supervision  of  ecclesias 
tical  visitors,  removal  of 
members  of  religious  or 
ders,  etc.,  372-373;  brief 
summary  of  laws,  373 ;  ju 
risdiction  over  all  classes 
of  churchmen,  373-375; 
settlement  of  disputes  be 
tween  rival  claimants  to 
positions  of  authority  par 
ticularly  to  position  of 
archbishop,  375-377;  in 
tervention  in  removal  of 
curates,  377-378;  removal 
of  regulars  for  cause,  378- 
379;  disciplinary  jurisdic 
tion  in  crimes  of  priests 
or  ecclesiastics,  379-380; 
assistance  in  internal  dis 
order,  379;  inspection  over 
prelates,  380-381;  of  ec 
clesiastical  work  of  parish 
priests,  381-384;  reception 
and  supervision  of  eccle 
siastical  visitors  from 
Spain  or  Mexico,  384;  re 
ports  to  the  court,  385- 
386;  supervision  of  col 
leges  and  universities, 
387;  advisory  powers  in 
educational  affairs,  388- 
390 ;  jurisdiction  over  mat 
ters  of  church  finance, 


[465] 


Index 


391-401  (see  The  Church, 
finances);  supervision 
over  espolios  and  vacant 
benefices,  401-405;  con 
struction  of  churches  and 
conservation  of  ecclesias 
tical  property,  405-408; 
summary,  408-409. 

Judicial  powers  (ecclesiasti 
cal  jurisdiction);  distinc 
tion  between,  and  its  acts 
relative  to  royal  patronage, 
410-412;  division  of  au 
thority  between  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  courts,  412- 
413;  power  of  interven 
tion  in  ecclesiastical  mat 
ters,  414-415;  duty  to 
guard  prerogatives  of  civil 
magistrates,  415;  limita 
tions  of  ecclesiastical 
courts,  415;  gradual 
growth  of  authority  in  ec 
clesiastical  affairs,  416- 
417;  high  court  of  appeal 
in  suits  to  which  religious 
orders  were  parties,  418- 
420;  jurisdiction  over  sec 
ular  church  courts  (metro 
politan  tribunal  of  arch 
bishop),  420;  recurso  de 
fuerza,  420-423,  424,  426, 
429;  interdict  (excom 
munication),  422-428  (sec 
also  the  Inquisition) ; 
court  of  final  resort  in 
testing  land  titles,  440- 
441;  jurisdiction  over  ec 
clesiastical  visitations, 
441-442;  conduct  influ 
enced  by  local  conditions, 
442-443;  summary,  443- 
444. 

Audiencia  of  Manila  in  relation 
to  the  governor,   84-85,   95-96, 
102,  108-109,  122,  147,  214;  con 
flicts    with,    131-132,    140-145, 
263-273,  285-298;    summary  of 
relations,     299-303.     See     also 
Acuerdo   Conflicts;    Governor; 
Residencia,  etc.,  etc. 
Auditor,   16  note  20. 


Auditor  de  guerra,  16  note  20, 
24,  118,  233,  233  note  14, 
238ff. 

Auditor  de  marina,  16  note  20, 
233. 

Auditor  de  Rota,  16  note  20. 

Augustinians,  68,  103ff.,  272,  354, 
378  note  35,  379  and  note  36, 
384,  406-408,  416  note  15. 

Atitos,   111. 

Autos  aeordados,  27  note  40,  215 
note  71,  216. 

Ayala,  Gaspar  de,  fiscal,   71. 

Ayuntamientos,   30,   157,   252. 

Basco  y  Vargas,  Jose,  governor, 
129,  139-140,  140  note  55,  179, 

217,  234,  234  note  18,   280ff. 

Beringuer  de  Marquina,  Felix, 
129,  140  note  56,  167ff.,  217- 

218,  229  note  1,  234,  255-256; 
residencia    of,     140-145,     282- 
284. 

Bernaldez  Pizarro,  Manuel,  157 
note  87. 

Bienes  de  difuntos,  53,  66,  171ff., 
174,  177  note  43,  181. 

Bolivar  y  Mefia,  Pedro  Sebas 
tian  de,  oidor,  255. 

Bonifaz,  see  Pena  Bonifaz. 

Bravo  de  Acuna,  Pedro  de,  gov 
ernor,  108,  217,  220ff.,  227,  227 
note  1,  245,  286ff.  and  43  and 
44,  304. 

Bravo  de  Saravia,  Melchoir,  307. 

Bribery,  261,  274  note  16,  329, 
341,  383  note  47,  398-399. 

British,  The,  hostility  of,  158, 
186,  240,  244,  246;  alliance 
with  Chinese,  289  note  46,  354; 
capture  of  Manila,  343,  397 
note  87. 

Buenos  Ayres,  audiencia  of,  17, 
19,  20,  16-1. 

Bustamente  y  Rueda,  Fernando 
Manuel  de,  governor,  241,  241 
note  31,  338,  380;  conflict  with 
audiencia,  273-280,  427;  mur 
der  of,  279-280. 


[466] 


Cabecilla,   254,    255-256. 
Cabildo,  65,  376. 
Caciques,  116,  173. 
Cadiz,  13,  174,  319  note  33. 

Calderon  Enriquez,  Pedro,  oidor, 
103,  342,  342  note  75,  398,  399, 
419-420. 

Camacho  y  Avila,  Diego,  arch 
bishop,  375. 

Camarines,  bishop  of,  354,  369 
note  7. 

Captain-general,  see  Governor 
and  captain-general.  See  also 
Mexico. 

Captaincies-general,  rank  of 
audiencias,  21-22. 

Caracas,  audiencia  of,  17,  17  note 

32. 

Carvajal,  see  Gonzales  Carvajal. 
Casa   de    Contratacion.    232-233; 

organization,    functions,    juris 
diction,   12-14. 
Castellan,  231,  233. 
Castillo   y    Negrete,   Manuel    de, 

oidor,  168,  217. 
Cavite,    114,    245,    274,    347,   406- 

407. 
Cebu,  audiencia  of,  17,  35  note  4, 

382;  bishop  of,  376;   encomien- 

das  in,  110. 
Cedulas.  significance  of  form  of 

address  used,  368,  368  note  5. 
Censorship,   187-191. 
Cerezo  de  Salamanca,  Juan,  327- 

328. 
Charcas,  audiencia  of,  20,  21  note 

32,  305,  307. 

Charles  V,  founds  audiencia  of 
Manila,  18. 

Chile,  Santiago  de,  audiencia,  17, 
20-21,  307. 

China,  32,  48,  69-70,  80,  196 
note  5,  213,  229,  241,  241  note 
30,  285,  325,  374,  375  note  27, 
386;  Dominicans  in,  374  note 
25;  taxation,  44  note  18. 


Chinese,  problems  in  connection 
with  commerce  with,  58,  61, 
62-63,  69,  79,  80,  85,  240,  241, 
330,  354;  jurisdiction  over, 
119,  431;  licenses  (taxes),  182, 
216,  249,  255,  326,  393;  data 
concerning  collected  by  audi 
encia,  185;  regulations  of 
acuerdo  concerning,  216;  gov 
ernment  of,  247-258;  adminis 
tration  of  justice  among,  255- 
258;  revolt  of,  289,  289  note 
46;  marriage  with,  378;  edu 
cation  of  (mestizos),  390  note 
71. 

Church,  185,  190,  195,  197,  214, 
268ff.;  construction  of,  23, 
405;  and  the  audiencia,  29,  51- 
52,  63,  362-444;  influence  of, 
41ff.,  73,  80,  103ff.,  241  note  31, 
242,  274ff.,  295,  334,  334  note 
63,  338ff.,  338  note  70,  342ff., 
354,  359-360,  387ff.,  416ff.,  432 
note  58;  property  of,  173,  173 
note  33;  councils,  371. 

Ad  interim  rule,  338-355,  356, 
359-360;  legalization  of,  339- 
390 ;  relations  between  audi 
encia  and  ecclesiastical  gov 
ernor  illustrated,  342-343; 
rule  of  Archbishop  Rajo, 
343-351.  See  also  The  Audi 
encia  of  Manila  in  relation 
to  the  Church. 

Finances,  under  supervision  of 
audiencia,  164,  391-401; 
tithes,  182,  391-394;  funds 
of  temporalities,  391,  395- 
396;  o~bras  pias  (Santa  Mis- 
ericordia  and  San  Juan  de 
Dios),  395-401;  taking  of 
espolios,  401-405. 

Churchmen,  not  subject  to  resi- 
dencia,  122;  reports  and  infor- 
maciones  required  of,  386-387. 

Cisneros,  Felipe,  oidor,  205,  205 
note  41. 

Code  of  1680,  see  Recopilacion 
de  leyes  de  los  Reinos  de  las 
Indias. 


[467] 


Index 


College  of  San  Juan  de  Letran, 
390. 

Coloma  y  Maceda,  Francisco  de, 
oidor,  131-132,  332ff.,  434. 

Columbus,  colonial  system  un 
der,  8-10. 

Comisos,  118. 

Commerce,  see  Trade. 

Commissions,  160-191,  203  note 
28,  238ff.,  238  note  25,  327  note 
51,  348  note  91,  394,  440-442. 

Compensation  of  officials,  72, 
161,  195,  199,  199  note  13,  201, 
201  note  20,  209  note  50,  247, 
289,  289  note  45,  305  note  2, 
319-320,  391  note  72. 

Confiscation  of  property,  270 
note  10,  272. 

Conflicts,  between  officials  and 
authorities,  63-64,  169-170, 
291-292,  292  note  50,  334-335; 
of  jurisdiction,  14,  56,  67,  73, 
161,  172,  177-181,  210,  223  note 
83,  224,  234-235,  236,  292  note 
50,  326,  358,  361,  382. 

Conquest,  expeditions  of,  243, 
317;  of  Orient,  projected  by 
Spain,  66. 

Consejo  de  Guerra,  234  and  notes 
17  and  18,  243-244  and  note 
36. 

Constitution  of  1812,  101-102, 
215,  219;  reforms  effected  by, 
119;  drafted  by  audiencia  in 
acuerdo,  217. 

Consulado  de  Manila,  115,  210, 
283,  296  note  85;  establish 
ment,  112,  182;  relation  to 
audiencia,  112;  function,  113; 
jurisdiction,  115,  400-401. 

Consulado    de    Sevilla,    13. 

Contador,  24,  385  note  53;  de 
cuentas,  398. 

Contaduria.  186;  de  cuentas  de 
Mexico,  75;  general,  173  note 
33,  181;  mayor  (Mexico  y 
Lima),  198. 

Contreras,  see  Moya  de  Con- 
treras. 


Corcuera.  Sebastian  Hurtado  de, 
138,  142  note  60,  217,  228,  246, 
304,  327  note  51,  377,  397  note 
87. 

Corregidor,  26-30,  30  note  47, 
33ff.,  33  note  3,  40,  47,  53ff., 
71,  76,  86,  lOOff.,  121,  126,  174, 
179,  196,  200ff.,  206,  212,  215, 
300,  309  note  12,  396  note  85, 
439;  residencias  of,  135,  147- 
149,  157  note  86. 

Corregimientos,  18,  51,  309  note 
12. 

Corte  del  Rey,  tribunal  of,  14. 

Cortes,  Hernan,  captain-general 
of  Mexico,  308-309. 

Council  of  Castile,  14,  14  note  17. 

Council  of  the  Indies,  11,  13,  14- 
16,  18,  24,  48,  52,  67,  68,  72,  84, 
107,  lllff.,  125,  132ff.,  140, 
143ff.,  155  note  83,  159,  162- 
163,  174,  177-178,  190,  195,  196 
note  5,  200,  203-204,  205,  210 
note  54,  224,  234,  235,  265,  268, 
277,  279-281,  303,  305,  305  note 
2,  313,  333,  371  note  11,  372, 
372-374,  382,  388,  389,  392,  401, 
421,  429. 

Cruzat  y  Gongora,  Pausto,  gov 
ernor,  111,  217. 

Cuba,  audiencias  in,  17,  20-21, 
161;  under  Santo  Domingo,  19. 

Cuesta,  Pray  Francisco  de  la, 
archbishop  and  governor, 
279ff.,  338,  340  note  71,  380. 

Curuzaelegui  y  Arriola,  Gabriel 
de,  governor,  213,  272-273,  275, 
268-269,  334. 

Cuzco,  audiencia  of,  17,  20,  21 
note  32. 

Dasmarifias,  see  Perez  Dasma- 
rinas. 

Davalos,  Melchoir,  oidor.  57ff., 
260. 

Decano.  85,  131,  161-162,  280, 
316,  357. 

Defense,  59,  141,  197,  220,  222, 
225ff.;  the  audiencia  and,  59, 
230ff.,  239ff.,  242ff.,  244ff.,  244 


[468] 


Index 


note  36;  of  Manila,  246,  248; 
of  Philippine  Islands,  313-314, 
317ff.,  324,  336,  340-341,  344ff., 
363. 

Delgado,  Juan  Jose,  historian 
and  Jesuit,  195;  cited  on  office 
of  governor  of  the  Philip 
pines,  195,  228-229. 

Diaz  de  Rivera,  Francisco,  fiscal, 
206. 

Diaz  Quejada  y  Obrero,  Felix, 
165-166. 

Diezmos.  collection  of,  23;  juris 
diction  of  audiencia  over, 
391ff.,  391  note,  72,  393  note  79. 

Dominicans,  103ff.,  242,  264,  268, 
271-272,  276-277,  324  note  45, 
338-339,  354,  374  note  25,  389- 
390,  396  note  85,  418ff.,  427. 

Durango,  Governor,  letters  of, 
29  note  45. 

Dutch,  240,  244,  317,  321,  325, 
397  note  87,  434,  434  note  63; 
attacks  of,  245. 

Education,  23;  under  supervi 
sion  of  audiencia,  185,  387,  388 
note  66.  See  also  College  of 
San  Juan  de  Letran;  San  Jose, 
royal  college  of;  University  of 
Santo  Tomas. 

Encomenderos,  relation  to  Span 
ish  colonial  land  system,  33; 
responsibilities  and  powers, 
35-36;  subject  to  residencia, 
129;  method  of  appointment, 
201;  forbidden  to  leave  Philip 
pines,  213. 

Encomiendas,  28,  33  note  1,  34ff., 
35  note  4,  37,  46,  47,  51,  96, 
110,  110  note  67,  213,  221,  221 
note  82,  315,  323,  323  note  43, 
336-337,  381,  393,  410  note  15; 
inspection  of,  164;  origin  of, 
93  note  40;  suits  of,  92ff., 
106ff.  See  also  Audiencia; 
Law  of  Malines. 

English,  see  British. 

Enrile  y  Alcedo,  Pascual,  gov 
ernor,  219,  300. 


Espanola.  early  government,  10, 
11;  under  audiencia  of  Santo 
Domingo,  19. 

Espeleta,   see   Lino   de   Espeleta. 

Espollos,  23,  391,  401,  401  note 
89,  402,  403,  404  note  104. 

Excommunication,  of  officials,  75, 
80,  279,  411,  411  note  4,  415, 
422-428;  abuse  of,  380,  382; 
limitations,  424,  425,  427,  435; 
setting  aside  of,  425-428. 

Exile,  sentence  of,  212-213,  212 
note  60,  268-269,  339,  379  note 
36,  422;  of  Archbishop  Pardo, 
270;  of  churchmen,  270,  378- 
379;  of  governor,  142;  of 
oidores,  270  note  10. 

Expedientes,  209  note  50,  218 
note  78. 

Factor,  24  note  37. 

Fajardo  y  Chacon,  Diego,  138, 
304,  330. 

Fajardo  y  Tenza,  Alonso,  gov 
ernor,  108,  117-118,  127,  202, 
217,  228  note  2,  246,  247,  262, 
265ff.,  291,  321,  322ff.,  397  note 
87. 

Falces,   Marques   de,   310. 

Fernandez  Zendera,  Francisco, 
alcalde  mayor.  152-155. 

Finance,  see  Real  hacienda. 

Finances,  church,  see  The 
Church,  finances. 

Fiscal.  53-54,  65,  72,  97,  lOOff., 
114,  137,  141,  149,  201,  221,  250, 
259,  263,  275,  318  note  32,  349, 
354,  384,  387,  403,  407;  royal, 
85,  114,  143,  277,  390  note  71; 
de  la  contaduria  general  de 
Indias,  175  note  40;  de  real 
hacienda,  142  note  59. 

Fiscales.  number  of,  21  note  32, 
38,  430;  marriage  of,  206-207. 

Flores  y  Cassila,  Matias,  oidor, 
326. 

Florida,  under  Audiencia  of 
Santo  Domingo,  19;  Cape  of, 
20. 


[469] 


Index 


Fonseca  y  Azevedo,  Alfonso, 
Archbishop  of  Seville,  9. 

Foreigners,  in  Philippines,  170, 
375,  375  note  26;  forbidden  to 
trade,  143  note  61;  inheritance 
of  property,  172,  172  note  31; 
prosecution  of,  114,  114  note 
82. 

Formosa,   capture  and  loss,   246. 

Franciscans,  272,  354,  381-382, 
383,  384,  434  note  63,  437,  441 
note  74. 

Free-masonry   forbidden,  183. 

Friars,  see  Religious. 

Friar  lands,  408-409,  440-442, 
note  75. 

Fuero  mixto,  105,  60;  fuero  mili- 
tar,  237,  430  note  55. 

Fuerza,  414,  426. 

Fuerza,  Recurso  de,  23,  25,  420- 
423,  424,  426,  429,  444. 

Galban  y  Ventura,  Manuel  de, 
oidor,  354. 

Galleons,  67,  67  note  42,  113,  127, 
134,  158-159,  177,  177  note  44, 
188,  194  note  2,  216-221,  222, 
263,  274;  galleon  space,  77,  95, 
115,  261,  302,  318-320,  319  note 
33,  319  note  34,  327,  349,  353, 
353  note  98,  385-386,  397ff.; 
galleon  officials,  127-128,  158- 
159;  galleon  trade,  limitations 
on,  76-77,  77  note  57,  95-96, 
on  valuation  of  suits,  88ff.,  91- 
92. 

Galvez,  Jose  de,  15. 

Gasca,  Pedro  de,  305  note  2. 

Gobernadoreillos,   154  note  81. 

Gobernadores,  of  provinces,  27, 
30  note  45,  48;  residencias  of, 
147-149. 

Gonzales  Carvajal,  Ciriaco,  140 
note  55,  156  note  85,  205  note 
41,  217. 

Gorospe  e  Irala,  Diego,  bishop, 
403. 

Governor,  powers  and  duties, 
39,  abuse  of,  41-43,  66,  75-76, 
141,  221ff.,  272-273,  278,  278 


note  28;  authorized  to  try 
cases  of  strangers,  114;  legal 
right  to  remove  officials,  122- 
123;  judges  of  residencia  des 
ignated  by,  126;  residencia  of, 
135-145,  157  note  86;  com 
mercial  excesses,  261;  relation 
to  home  government,  296;  ap 
pointment  of,  321,  327ff., 
330ff.;  ad  interim,  328-329, 
329-333. 

Captain-general,  79 ;  military 
jurisdiction  claimed  by,  177- 
179,  237;  independent  in  ex 
ercise  of  military  authority, 
225,  230;  need  of  military 
qualifications,  228;  head  of 
special  judicial  system  for 
trial  of  soldiers  under  mili 
tary  law,  118,  231-247;  par 
doning  power,  232;  designa 
tion  of  auditor  de  guerra, 
233;  sharing  of  authority, 
241-242,  243-244;  jurisdic 
tion  over  Chinese,  119,  247- 
258;  military  powers,  321. 
President  of  royal  audiencia, 
208-211,  216,  225;  oversight 
of  judicial  work  of  audien 
cia,  210;  pardoning  power, 
210-211;  governorship  sepa 
rated  from  presidency,  211. 
Royal  vice  patron,  195,  216, 
268,  269;  relation  to  provin 
cial  governments,  195,  196. 
Viceroy,  general  relations  to  the 
audiencia,  193-204;  official 
title,  193;  threefold  functions, 
193-194;  administrative  func 
tions,  196,  224;  supervision  of 
administration  of  colonial 
exchequer,  197-198;  appoint 
ing  power,  198-204,  abuse  of, 
261,  292,  limitation  of,  263; 
conflicts  over,  with  audien 
cia,  199-200,  temporary  ap 
pointments  (ad  interim, 
etc.),  200-202,  203;  reports 
on  services  and  recommen 
dations  for  promotion  or 
dismissal  of  officials,  204- 
208;  independent  judicial 


[470] 


powers:  jurisdiction  over 
Indian  cases,  211,  over  prop 
erty  condemnation  suits, 
212;  power  to  exile,  212, 
over  travelers,  213-214;  rel 
ative  authority  of  governor 
and  audiencia,  laws  of  the 
Indies  on,  214,  218;  relations 
between  detailed,  220-225; 
influence  on,  and  power 
over,  illustrated,  273-280. 

Granada,   chancery   of,    19,   23. 

Grao  y  Monfalcon,  Juan,  79  note 
61. 

Great  Britain,  see   British. 

Guadalajara,  audiencia  of,  cre 
ated,  17,  20;  size  and  rank,  21 
note  32;  mentioned,  309  note 
12,  312. 

Guam,   Island  of,   127-128. 

Guatemala,  audiencia  of,  see 
Santiago  de  Guatemala. 

Guerela,  Francisco,  oidor,  381- 
382,  424. 

Guerra,  auditor  de,  appointment, 
jurisdiction,  duties,  233;    com 
plaint   regarding,  238. 
Consejo   ordinario    de.    234. 
Junta  de,  22  note  32,  113-114, 
114  note  79,  232,  233,  234. 

Junta  de,  de  las  India*,  organ 
ization  and  jurisdiction,  232- 
233;  instances  of  method  of 
procedure,  233-234. 
See  also  Marina,  auditor  de. 
Guerrero,  Hernando,  archbishop, 

376-377,  380. 

Hacienda,    see   Real    hacienda. 
Hacienda,    acuerdo    general    de. 
24;    junta  de,   see  Acuerdo  de 
hacienda. 
Havana,     audiencia     of,     17,     21 

note  32. 
Honduras,  Cape  of,  boundary  of, 

New  Spain,  20. 

Humboldt,  Alexander  von,  60 
note  31,  131. 


Hurtado  de  Corcuera,  Sebastian, 
see  Corcuera,  Sebastian  Hur 
tado  de. 

Igorrotes,  154. 
Ilocanos,  154.. 

Ilocos,  179,  217,  341;  encomien- 
das  in,  35  note  4. 

Indians,  provisions  for  just 
treatment  and  protection  of, 
23,  53ff.,  87,  99-102,  104,  107, 
152-156,  164,  336-337,  380-381, 
411;  taxation  of,  28,  93,  exemp 
tion  from,  353;  employment, 
in  road-building,  and  ship 
building,  28;  jurisdiction  of 
governor  over,  211. 

Indies,  Council  of  the,  see  Coun 
cil  of  the  Indies. 

Informaciones  de  servicio,  121, 
385  and  note  53. 

Inquisition,  in  Manila,  relations 
with  audiencia,  188-189;  su 
preme  power  of,  429-430,  434; 
gradual  delimitation  and  cir 
cumscription  of  authority,  430- 
431,  439-440;  utilized  by  prel 
ates  for  usurpation  of  powers 
belonging  to  civil  government 
and  audiencia,  431-432;  util 
ized,  influenced  and  possessed 
by  individuals  and  private  in 
terests  for  selfish  ends,  432- 
434;  excesses  of  commissary 
Paterniva,  435-436;  struggle 
and  ultimate  defeat  of  weak 
audiencia  and  governor  with, 
437-438;  authority  over  given 
to  civil  courts,  439-440. 

Intendants,  255;  Ordinance  of, 
198,  404-405. 

Interdicts,  see  Excommunica 
tion. 

Intestates,  administration  of  es 
tates  of,  170-181. 

Japan,  relations  with  Philip 
pines,  32,  48,  213,  220,  229, 
324-325,  372. 

Japanese,  59,  240,  241-242;  insur 
rection  of,  320. 


[471] 


Jesuits,  in  Philippines,  68,  266, 
268,  271  note  13,  272,  276,  278 
note  28,  241,  280,  354,  386, 
388-389,  note  66,  395,  418ff.f 
426. 

Juan,  Jorge,  authority  on  Span 
ish  colonization,  130  note  28. 

Judges,  see  alcalde,  corrcgidor. 
juez  de,  oid'Or,  residencta,  etc. 

Juez  conservador,  166  and  note 
16,  380  note  41. 

Juez  letrado,   13. 

Juez  de  difuntos.  170ff.,  172-173, 
264. 

Junta  de  c/ucrra,  22  note  32,  113- 
114,  114  note  79,  232,  233,  234. 

Junta  ordinaria  de  la  real  ha 
cienda.  162,  162  note  6. 

Junta  superior  de  la  real  ha 
cienda.  162  note  7. 

Justice,  administration  of,  before 
establishment  of  audiencia, 
40;  in  provinces,  26-31,  32; 
under  audiencia,  49,  56ff.,  71- 
74,  79,  80,  83-120,  137-138,  153- 
154,  196-197,  210  and  note  54, 
218  note  78,  227,  234ff.,  255ff., 
259-303,  307-309,  310,  315,  317, 
362,  382,  401,  410ff.,  442,  444. 
See  also  Audiencia,  judicial 
functions,  military  jurisdic 
tion;  Audiencia,  president  of; 
Chinese;  Governor  (captain- 
general);  Guerra,  auditor  de, 
junta  de.  etc. 

King,  officials  appointed  by,  200; 
final  pardoning  power,  210. 

King's  Fifth,  see  Quinto. 

Ladrones  (Marianas  Islands), 
127,  144;  galleons  instructed 
to  stop  at,  222. 

Lanza,  165  note  11. 

La  Plata,  audiencia  of,  17,  20, 
21  note  32. 

Laudin,  Fray  Alonso,  414. 

Lavezares,   Guido   de,   37. 

Laws  of  the  Indies,  see  Recopi- 
lacion  dc  leyes  de  las  Indias. 


Leandro  de  Viana,  Francisco, 
fiscal,  15  note  18,  182,  217,  300, 
345  note  85,  354,  407. 

Legaspi,  Geronimo  de,  governor, 
37,  326,  326  note  48. 

Le  Gentil  de  la  Galaisiere,  Jo 
seph  Hyacinthe,  195,  381. 

Legislation,  see  Aeuerdo. 

Leon,  Manuel  de,  governor,  333, 

434ff.,  434  note  64. 
Letrado,  13,  74,  238. 
Leyte,   encomiendas  in,   110. 
Lieutenant-governor,    316,    317. 
Lima,    audiencia    of,    18-21,    86, 

117    note    88;     assumption    of 

government    by     (ad     interim 

rule),    305-306. 
Lino     de    Espeleta,     Miguel     de, 

bishop  and  governor,  139  note 

54,    341-342,    341    note   73;    es- 

polio,  404  note  104. 
Lizarraga,    Conde    de,    governor, 

128,  335. 
Loarca,  Miguel  de,  cncomendero, 

35  note  4. 
Louisiana,    under    audiencia    of 

Santo    Domingo,    19. 
Lopez    de    Legaspi,     Miguel     de, 

governor,  37.  260  note  1. 
Luzon,  35  note  4,  243,  248,  310. 
Macao,  rival  to  Manila,  62. 
Madras,  172  note  31,  206. 
Maestre  de  campo.  231,  336,  338, 

369  note  1. 
Maldonado,    see    Rivera    Maldo- 

nado. 
Malines,    Law    of,    92-93,    94,    95, 

106,   107,   108. 
Manila,  captured  by  British,  343, 

344,  349. 

Marianas  Islands,  127,  144,  222. 
Marique  de  Lara,  Sabiniano,  330. 
Marina,  auditor  de.  appointment, 

jurisdiction,    duties,    233. 
Marquina,      see      Beringuer      de 

Marquina. 


[472] 


Index 


Marriage,  of  officials,  laws  for 
bidding,  205-207;  of  natives, 
ordinance  enforcing,  216. 

Mas,  Sinibaldo  de,  130;  cited  on 
interference  of  audiencias,  218, 
218  note  78;  cited  on  relative 
functions  of  audiencia  and 
governor,  223,  223  note  83. 

Medias  anatas.  165-166,  165  notes 
11,  13,  335  note  64. 

Mestizos,  Chinese,  390  note  71, 
393,  419. 

Messa  y  Lugo,  Alvaro,  oidor. 
263ff. 

Mexico,  115,  177;  audiencia,  cre 
ated,  16-22,  appeals  to,  from 
Philippines,  43,  66-69,  71,  74, 
78,  96,  137,  277,  290;  assump 
tion  of  government  by  audien 
cia,  305,  308-309,  provision  of 
succession,  310-311;  captaincy- 
general  of  Cortes,  309. 

Mindanao,   220,   243,  418. 

Mindoro,  Recollects  in,  418. 

Misa,  Francisco  de  la,  factor,  in 
re  encomiendas,  criticizes  the 
government,  37  note  9;  memo 
rial  of,  75ff.,  96ff. 

Misericordia,  see  Santa  Miseri- 
cordia. 

Missionaries,  see  Religious. 

Moluccas,  expeditions  to,  243, 
245,  246,  318,  321,  323. 

Monopolies,  royal,  166ff.,  166 
note  15,  281,  335  note  64. 

Montemayor  y  Mansilla,  Fran 
cisco  de,  oidor.  297ff.,  332ff., 
332  note  58,  434. 

Monte  pio,  396  note  85. 

Montero  y  Vidal,  cited  on  mili 
tary  aspect  of  governor's  po 
sition,  230. 

Morga,  Antonio  de,  teniente  y 
asesor,  74  note  54,  77,  98-99, 
245,  248  note  45,  300,  317ff. 

Moros,  defense  against,  141,  243, 
341. 


Moses,  B.,  cited  on  assumption 
of  government  by  audiencia, 
306;  cited  on  division  of  au 
thority  between  civil  and  ec 
clesiastical  courts,  412-413. 

Moya  de  Contreras,  Pedro,  arch 
bishop  and  viceroy,  67. 

Natives,  see  Indians. 

New  Granada,  audiencia  of,  19- 
20. 

New  Mexico,  references  to,  29 
note  45. 

New  Spain,  audiencias  of,  com 
parison  of  powers  with  audien 
cia  of  Manila,  8  note  1;  gov 
ernment  of,  29,  40,  45  note  19, 
203,  226,  304,  383;  relations 
with  Manila,  72,  194-195,  194 
note  2;  viceroy  of,  47-48,  185- 
196,  200,  220,  277,  285-286,  303, 
306,  308ff.,  312-313,  327,  356; 
assumption  of  government  by, 
304-312,  314. 

Nino  de  Tavora,  Juan,  governor, 
109,  246,  251  note  49,  304,  327, 
328. 

Nueva  Gnlicia,  references  to  cor 
respondence  regarding,  29  note 
45;  audiencia  of,  309  note  12. 

Nueva  Segovia,  Bishop  of,  340, 
351,  371  note  11,  376,  377  note 
32,  403. 

Nueva  Vizcaya,  references  to  cor 
respondence  relating  to,  29 
note  45. 

Nuevo  Leon,  references  to  cor 
respondence  relating  to,  29 
note  45. 

Notaries,  55. 

Novenos,  381  note  72,  392. 

Nunez  Vela,  Blasco,   305. 

Obando  y  Solis,  Jose  Francisco 
de,  governor,  244. 

Obras  Pias,  391,  396-401. 

Observants,  Order  of,  418. 

Offices,  sale  of,  221,  261,  263,  302- 
303. 


Officials,  minor,  appointment  of, 
146ff.,  202;  residencias  of,  156, 
159. 

Oflciales  reales,  24,  23  note  37, 
28,  34  note  3,  46,  75,  118,  174, 
210,  237,  262,  385  note  53,  391 
note  72;  removal  of,  122-123; 
dispute  with  juez  de  difuntos 
over  administrative  matters, 
179-181;  accounts  of  audited 
by  oidor.  182,  196;  inspectors 
of  ships,  188;  method  of  ap 
pointment,  200,  201,  of  filling 
vacancies,  311;  taking  of  es- 
polios  of  prelates,  402-405. 

Oidorcs.  duty  of,  24;  special  du 
ties,  85,  88,  100,  126,  129,  160ff.; 
members  of  juntas  reales,  28; 
inspections  by,  30,  121ff.,  163- 
164,  188;  interference  in  mat 
ters  of  government  illustrated, 
57-58;  extent  of  authority 
claimed,  58-64;  removal  of, 
122-123;  special  commissions 
(judgeships),  160-163,  limita 
tions  of,  166-170;  periodical 
inspection  of  provinces  ( visit 
ing  oidor),  163-164,293;  judge- 
commissioner  of  medias  ana- 
tas,  165-166;  ascsores  (jueces 
conservadores) ,  166;  jueces  de 
difuntos,  170-181;  disputes 
with  Captain-general,  177-179, 
with  oflcial  real.  179-181; 
charged  with  investigations  of 
conduct  of  officials,  184,  187, 
208;  instances  of,  184;  reports 
on  educational  documents  by 
"royal  designation,"  200,  201; 
minute  supervision  of  gov 
ernor  over  personal  conduct 
of,  204,  208;  marriage  re 
strictions,  205-207;  judicial 
power  over  of  governor,  207, 
208;  salable  offices  not  to  be 
conferred  on  relatives,  221, 
287;  liable  to  service  on  mili 
tary  tribunals,  231-232,  237- 
239;  in  Chinese  cases,  255;  ad 
vice  and  interference  in  mili 
tary  matters,  240-241,  243-244; 
commercial  excesses,  285-286, 


291;  importance  of  in  ad  in 
terim  rule  of  audiencia,  316; 
deprived  of  control  in  military 
affairs,  328;  prohibited  from 
interference  with  internal  gov 
ernment  of  religious  orders, 
372;  visitors  of  the  provinces, 
381-384;  required  to  render 
special  and  regular  reports  to 
court  in  re  ecclesiastical  con 
cerns,  385-386;  forbidden  to 
act  as  rectors  of  colleges  or 
universities,  387;  forbidden  to 
interfere  save  at  five-year  in 
tervals  with  property  of  Santa 
Misericordia,  399;  intervention 
in  the  taking  of  cspolios.  402; 
inspection  of  royal  hospital  at 
Manila,  408;  laws  governing 
conduct  toward  Inquisition 
429-430. 

Olazo,  Lorenzo  de,  soldier,  327. 

Ordenanzas  reales  para  la  Casa 
de  Contratacion,  26  note  40. 

Orders,   religious,   sec  Religious. 
Ordinance  of  Intendants,  see  In- 
tendants,    Ordinance   of. 

Ordinance  of  Good  Government, 
217. 

Oredain,  Santiago,  asesor.   342ff. 

Orient,  Spain  in,  66. 

Ortega,      Pray      Francisco      de, 

Bishop  of  Nueva  Segovia,   68. 
Otazo,  Diego  de,  Jesuit,  278  note 

28. 

Palou,  Francisco  de,  374. 
Panama,    18,    20;     audiencia    of, 

created,  16;   rank  and  size,  21 

note  32. 

Pancada,   80,  80   note  62. 

Pangasinan,  155  note  82,  206, 
403. 

Pardo  de  Tavera,  T.  H.,  histo 
rian,  33,  99  note  1. 

Pardo  (Fernandez  de),  Felipe, 
archbishop,  268ff.,  334,  369. 
369  note  7,  419,  422,  427,  432 
note  60,  442-443. 


1-174] 


Index 


Pardons,  211,  232,  236. 

Pareceres  de  servicio,  121,  121 
note  2. 

Parian,  85,  85  note  6,  216,  248ff., 
248  note  45,  252ff. 

Paternina,  Joseph  de,  commis 
sary  of  the  Inquisition,  435ff. 

Pavon,  Jose,  oidor,  336,  336  note 
65. 

Pena  Bonifaz,  Manuel  de  la, 
oidor  and  temporary  governor, 
297ff.,  332,  434. 

Perez  Dasmarinas,  Gomez,  gov 
ernor,  35  note  5,  72,  75,  197, 
241,  285,  316-317. 

Peru,  comparison  of  audiencia 
with  audiencia  of  Manila,  8 
note  1;  alcabala.  45  note  19; 
jurisdiction  of  audiencia,  85; 
government  and  viceroy,  161, 
226,  303,  304-305;  assumption 
of  government  by  audiencia, 
305,  306.  Sec  also  Lima,  audi 
encia  of. 

Pesquisa,  119,  123  note  10,  125, 
307. 

Pesquisidores,  oidores  as,  23,  91, 
91  note  34,  125,  215;  residen- 
cias  of,  50. 

Philip  II,  founds  audiencia  of 
Manila,  19,  48;  reforms,  46 
note  21;  withdraws  audiencia, 
71. 

Philip  III,  extends  institution  of 
audiencia,  19;  reforms,  93. 

Philip  IV,  founds  audiencias,  19; 
reforms,  37  note  9,  123,  171. 

Philippines,  geographical  posi- 
sition,  32;  government  of:  un 
der  audiencia  of  Mexico,  18, 
39;  administration  of  prior  to 
audiencia,  32-44,  after  break 
down  of  audiencia,  71-72,  73- 
78;  problems,  of  cncomicnda, 
34-38,  of  the  governorship,  38- 
43;  relation  to  New  Spain,  39ff., 
57ff. ;  military  administration, 
40,  76,  296-297;  influences  for 
creation  of  audiencia,  43-46, 


reasons  for,  47,  opposition  to, 
47-48;  administration:  by  au 
diencia,  81,  204,  304-361;  by 
church,  279,  340ff.,  356,  356 
note  105,  359-360,  362-364. 
See  also  Manila,  audiencia  of; 
•  Chinese;  Espafiola;  Governor; 
Oidores,  Residencia,  etc.,  etc. 

Pimentel,    Antonio,    governor    of 

Marianas,    127ff.,    271-272,    271 

note  13. 
Pinelo,     Leon,     contribution     to 

Recopilacion,   25   note   40,   26- 

27. 

Pizarro,  Francisco,  relations 
with  audiencia  of  Lima,  305, 
305  note  2. 

Pizarro,  Gonzalo,  relations  with 
audiencia  of  Lima,  306. 

Playa  Honda,  Battle  of,  245,  322. 

Pliegos  de   Providencia,   340ff. 

Poblete  (Milan  de  Poblete)  Jose, 
archbishop,  212  note  60,  369, 
380. 

Polo,  28,  28  note  44,  353. 

Portuguese,  incursions  of,  62- 
63;  resentment  at  establish 
ment  of  audiencia,  69-70,  70 
note  44;  relations  with,  240. 

Potosi,    307. 

Prelate,  see  Church. 

Prescott,  William,  130  note  28. 

Presidency,  audiencia  of,  21-22; 
rank  of,  21  note  32. 

President,  see  Governor  and  Cap 
tain-general. 

Presidents,  of  audiencias,  pow 
ers  and  duties,  22. 

Presidios,  194  note  2. 

Procurator  general,  duties  of, 
44,  44  note  18. 

Procurator,   68,    228,   414. 

Property,  administration  of, 
170ff. 

Provincial  administration,  26-31. 

Provisor,  378  note  35,  380  note 
40,  412  note  6,  426. 


[475] 


Puerto  Principe,  audiencia  of, 
17;  size  and  rank,  21  note  32. 

Puerto  Rico,  government  of,  11, 
under  audiencia  of  Santo  Do 
mingo,  19,  161;  audiencia  cre 
ated,  17;  size  and  rank  of 
audiencia,  21  note  32. 

Quiapo,  386. 

Quinto,  118,  162,  162  note  3,  182. 

Quito,  audiencia  of,  created,  17; 
size  and  rank,  21  note  32; 
mentioned,  20,  305,  341. 

Raon,  Jose,  governor,  139,  139 
note  54,  217. 

Real  hacienda,  audiencia  and, 
52,  67,  75,  76,  87,  97,  118,  143, 
151,  156  note  85,  162-163,  162 
notes  6,  7,  166  note  15,  169, 
174-175,  175  note  40,  174-182, 
197-198,  222,  262,  265-266,  272- 
273,  274-275,  281,  283,  318-319, 
320,  325,  353-355,  note  98,  394- 
395,  400. 

Receptor.  126,  126  note  15. 
Recollects,   380,   418ff. 

Recopilaei'in  cle  leyes  cle  los 
Reinos  cle  las  Indias,  25,  25 
note  40,  83,  130,  130  note  28, 
250,  276,  301,  305,  314-315,  373, 
387,  415,  417,  429. 

Rccurso  de  fuerza,  105,  411,  411 
note  3,  420ff.,  421  note  27. 

Reforms,  37,  46  note  21,  81-82, 
132-134,  144,  154-157,  184,  217, 
274-275,  329-330,  331,  392-393. 
Sac  also  Intendancy. 

Regents,  salaries  of,  21  note  32; 
powers  and  duties,  85,  131,  141, 
186,  211;  recommended  for 
audiencia  of  Manila,  223  note 
83;  royal  instriction  of,  208, 
357,  357  note  107. 

Religious,  103ff.,  185,  372,  378 
note  35,  380ff.t  386-387,  387 
note  61,  405ff.,  410-444,  417 
note  18;  regulations  of  acuerdo 


concerning,      215;      suits      be 
tween,  418ff.,  442. 

Removals,  of  civil  officials,  123 
218,  of  ecclesiastics,  377-378. 

Repartimientos,  of  Indians,  -28, 
28  note  44,  93,  93  note  40. 

Residencia.  23,  25,  50,  74,  97-98, 
118,  119,  121-151,  123  note  10, 
159,  203,  209,  209  note  50,  247, 
261,  264,  270  note  10,  269,  273, 
274  note  16,  280,  283-284;  offi 
cials  subject  to,  129,  134, 
135ff.,  142  note  59,  146,  152- 
156,  208;  origin,  124;  reforms 
in,  131,  133,  145,  149-150,  155- 
158;  bonds  of,  134,  135,  142, 
143,  145,  153,  274;  fines,  143, 
remission  of,  91;  method  of 
conducting,  145-150,  length  of, 
150-151;  sentence  of,  151-152; 
book  of,  192;  of  provincial  of 
ficials,  216.  See  also  Manila, 
audiencia  of. 

Revenues,  ecclesiastical,  366, 
389ff.,  396ff. 

Revista,  49. 

Rios  Coronel,  Fernando  de  los, 
228. 

Rivera,  Gabriel  de,  proeurador 
de  las  islas  del  poniente.  44ff. 

Rivera  de  Maldonado,  Antonio 
de,  oidor,  71. 

Robertson,  James  Alexander,  his 
torian,  130  note  28,  310  note  15. 

Rojas,  Pedro  de,  teniente  y 
ascsor.  71;  transferred  to  Mex 
ico,  74;  peculations,  285-286. 

Rojas  y  Ornate  (Onate),  Fran 
cisco  de,  visitor-general,  251, 
313,  326-327. 

Rojo  del  Rio  y  Vieyra,  Manuel 
Antonio,  archbishop  and  gov 
ernor,  139  note  54,  246,  341; 
ad  interim  rule,  343-355;  es- 
polio,  404  note  104,  428. 

Ronquillo  de  Penalosa,  Diego, 
governor,  42. 


[476] 


Index 


Ronquillo  de  Pefialosa,  Gonzalo, 
governor,  39ff.,  41  note  14,  107, 
137,  260,  425. 

Royal  patronage,  shared  by  au- 
diencia  and  governor,  23,  82, 
268ff.,  302,  362-409;  origin, 
363  note  2;  resistance  to,  369, 
369  note  1,  370ff. 

Ruego  y  Encargo,  365  note  3, 
378  note  35,  382. 

Salaries,   see   Compensation. 

Salas,  number  in  respective  au- 
diencias,  21  note  32. 

Salazar,  Domingo  de,  bishop  and 
first  archbishop,  38ff.,  64ff.,  73, 
73  note  51,  107,  260,  362,  368- 
369,  418  notes  15  and  16,  431. 

Salcedo,  Diego  de,  governor,  resi- 
dencia  of,  131ff.;  lack  of  sup 
port  by  audiencia,  297ff., 
362ff.;  enmity  of  the  Inquisi 
tion,  380,  432-434,  438  note  69. 

San  Francisco  de  Quito,  sec 
Quito. 

San  Jose,  royal  college  of,  388- 
389,  390. 

San  Juan  de  Dios,  396  note  86, 
397. 

San  Juan  de  Letran,  college  of, 
390. 

Sanchez,  Fray  Alonzo,  68,  362. 

Sande,  Francisco  de,  governor, 
36,  37,  38ff.,  137,  162  note  3, 
196  note  5. 

Santa  Cruzada,  asesor  de,  24, 
bull  of,  24. 

Santa  Fe  (de  Bogota),  audiencia 
of,  17;  size  and  rank,  21  note 
32;  presidency,  306-307;  de 
fects  of,  307;  law  of  succession, 
311. 

Santa  Misericordia,  396,  397-401. 

Santiago  de  Chile,  audiencia  of, 
created,  17,  20;  size  and  rank, 
21  note  32;  mentioned,  347. 

Santiago  de  Cuba,  audiencia,  cre 
ated,  17. 

Santiago   de   Guatemala,   audien 


cia   created,    17,    20;     size  and 

rank,  21  note  32. 
Santo    Domingo,    audiencia,    12, 

16,   19,  20,  31;    precedessor  of, 

11;   size  and  rank,  21  note  32. 
Santo  Tomas,  University  of,  387, 

388,  389,  390. 

Saravia,  see  Bravo  de  Saravia. 
Sarrio,    Pedro,    teniente   del   rey 

and  acting  governor,  178,  214, 

281,  390. 

Segundo  Cabo,  230,  281,  357-358. 
Serrano   (Garcia  y  Serrano)   Mi 
guel  de,  archbishop,  376. 
Seville,    Consulado    of,     13,    319 

note  33. 
Silva,     Fernando     de,     governor, 

324,   325-326. 
Silva,     Geronimo    de,    governor, 

138,  142  note  60,  321,  324,  326, 

328. 
Silva,    Juan    de,    governor,    251, 

295,  304,  321. 
Slavery,  184. 
Sociedad  de  los  amigos  del  pals, 

186,  281  note  33. 
Soldiers,  trial  of,  231,  247.     See 

also  Audiencia  of  Manila,  mili 
tary  functions. 
Solorzano    y    Pereyra,    Juan    de, 

author  of  Politica  Indiana,  15 

note  18,  22,  22  note  23,  24,  26 

note  40. 
South    America,    audiencias    and 

governments  of,  304ff. 

Spain,  colonial  administration: 
definition  of,  1,  adaptation  of 
home  institutions  to,  8;  sketch 
of  development  of,  1-29;  under 
Columbus,  8-10;  audiencias  in, 
25,  214;  high  purpose  of,  99- 
100;  ineffectiveness  of  illus 
trated,  100-101;  pomp  and 
ceremony  of,  187;  cause  of 
failure,  236-237;  defects  in, 
299-300;  plan  of  succession 
adopted  for,  358;  government 
by  audiencia  typical  of,  360- 
361. 


[4771 


Spanish,  instruction  in,  154. 

Spielberg,  George,  Dutch  free 
booter,  321. 

Subsidy,  deductions  at  Acapulco, 
25  note  37,  175  note  40,  176  and 
note  41,  319  note  33,  175  note 
27. 

Succession,  of  audiencia  to  gov 
ernment,  266,  273,  304-361;  in 
Peru,  310;  in  Mexico,  310;  laws 
regarding,  310-314.  See  also 
Manila,  audiencia  of. 

Suits,  112ff.,  400;  criminal,  116ff., 
116  note  88;  in  docket,  128;  in 
volving  Chinese,  119ff. ;  prop 
erty,  lllff.;  records  of,  111; 
valuation  of,  111,  112,  115,  132- 
133,  146.  See  also  Manila,  au 
diencia  of. 

Sulus,  Mohammedan,  expeditions 
against,  57. 

Superintendent e    general    de    la 

real  hacienda,  177. 
Superintendent  e   subdelegado    de 

la  real  hacienda,  167,  198,  254- 

255,  394,  400: 
Supreme    Council    of    War,    232. 

See  Guerra  de  Indias,  Junta  de. 
Supreme  Tribunal  of  Justice,  157, 

157   note   86,    159,    162   note   1, 

181,  190. 

Tabasco,  relation  to  New  Spain, 
20. 

Tavora,  sec  Nino  de  Tavora. 

Taxation,  on  imported  money, 
61;  on  metals  (mined),  182; 
Chinese,  182,  254.  See  also 
Adelandados,  Alcabala.  Almo- 
jarifazgo,  Diezmos,  Medias  an- 
atas.  Polo,  Quinto,  Real  haci 
enda. 

Tayabas,  inspection  in,  179. 

Tello  de  Guzman,  Francisco,  gov 
ernor,  75,  78,  108,  245,  317-318. 

Temporalities,  389,  391,  395  note 
83. 

Teniente  del  governador,  11,  71, 
74,  154,  285,  344ff.;  del  rey,  142 
note  59,  355,  356-357. 


Ternate,  200,  245. 
Testimonies,    111   note   68. 

Tidore,  request  for  assistance 
from  king  of,  245. 

Tierra  Firme,  305. 

Tithes,  ecclesiastical,  see  Diez 
mos. 

Tondo,  a  ward  of  Manila,  100, 
100  note  53,  179. 

Tormento,  Josef,  alcalde  mayor, 

residencia  of,  149. 
Torralba,    Jose.oidor    and   acting 

governor,  127,  142  note  60,  158, 

273,  274  note  16,  278-279,  335- 
336,  335  note  64. 

Torre,    Caspar    de    la,    governor, 

243,  340. 

Torre,  Francisco  Xavier  de  la, 
teniente  del  rey  and  acting  gov 
ernor,  139  note  54,  219,  243- 

244,  355-356,  355  note  102,  347 
note  89,  348  note  91. 

Touron  (Tournon-Millard  Tour- 
on),  Carlos  Tomas,  papal  dele 
gate  278  note  27,  336  note  65, 
374-375,  375  note  27. 

Towns,  administration  of  justice 
in,  30,  33-34. 

Trade,  287,  287  note  44,  302,  318- 
319,  327,  401;  Chinese,  73,  185, 
248,  252-253,  262,  289  note  47, 
327,  330;  illicit,  144;  report  on, 
186;  ruination  by  taxation,  44- 
45;  of  ecclesiastics,  399;  of 
officials,  148,  154,  157  note.  87, 
204-205,  note  35,  222,  259,  273- 

274,  285,  291,  291  note  49,  299, 
319  notes  33  and  34,  372.     See 
also  Chinese,  commerce  with; 
Galleons. 

Tribunals,  ecclesiastical,  412ff., 
412  note  6,  420,  436ff.,  440 
note  72. 

Tribute,  34  note  4,  37  note  9,  59 
note  61,  215,  220;  from  Chi 
nese,  185. 

Trinidad,  Archbishop,  341,  341 
note  73. 


[478] 


Index 


Ulloa,  Antonio,  authority  on 
Spanish  colonization,  130  note 
28. 

Unamanu,  Pedro,  voyage  to 
China,  62. 

Universities  in  the  Philippines, 
see  San  Jose,  San  Juan  de 
Letran,  Santo  Tomas. 

University  of  Santo  Tomas, 
founding  of,  387,  388,  389,  390. 

Urdaneta,  Andres  de,  310  note  15. 

Ustariz,  Bishop  of  Nueva  Sego 
via,  351-352,  354. 

Vacancies,  312,  315,  351,  375ff. 
See  also  Succession,  Manila, 
audiencia  of,  ad  interim  rule. 

Valderrama,  Domingo  de,  visitor- 
general  to  New  Spain,  310. 

Valdivia  (Campos  Valdivia) 
Francisco,  visitor-general,  273, 
423,  443. 

Valladolid,  chancery  of,  19,  23, 
170. 

Van  Noordt,  Oliver,  Dutch  free 
booter,  74  note  54,  245. 

Vargas,  see  Basco  y  Vargas,  Jose. 

Vargas  Hurtado,  Juan  de,  gover 
nor,  140,  213,  228  note  2,  268- 
269,  333,  368,  423,  432  note  60. 

Veedor,  24  note  37. 

Venezuela  under  audiencia  of 
Santo  Domingo,  19. 

Vera,  Santiago  de,  governor,  55ff.. 
62,  66,  67,  71,  241  note  30,  260. 

Viana,  Francisco  Leandro  de,  fis 
cal,  15  note  18,  182,  217,  300, 
345  note  85,  354,  407. 


Vicarios,  412  note  6. 

Vicepatron,  assisted  by  oidores, 
28,  216,  269,  364ff.,  369  note  1, 
370ff.,  426.  See  also  Governor, 
Royal  vicepatron. 

Viceroyalty,  audiencia  of,  21-22. 

Viceroy,  85,  133,  157  note  86,  170, 
210  note  54.  See  also  Governor 
and  Captain-General,  for  duties 
and  relations  with  audiencia; 
New  Spain. 

Vigan,  audiencia  of,  created,  17; 
town  of,  155. 

Villacorta,  Francisco  Enriquez 
de,  oidor.  139,  139  note  54, 
354ff. 

Villa,  Gregorio  Manuel,  oidor, 
128ff. 

Visayas,  28. 

Tisitador,  see  Visitor. 

Visitation,  ecclesiastical,  375,  399. 

Visitor,  24,  -91  note  34,  267-268, 
306,  344,  384. 

Visitor-General,  266,  272ff.,  299- 
300,  310,  313,  326. 

Vista,  49. 

Vivero  de  Laredo,  Rodrigo,  tem 
porary  governor,  320-321. 

Wittert,  Francois,  Dutch  admiral, 
attacks  Philippines,  321. 

Yucatan,  relation  to  New  Spain, 
18,  20. 

Zambales,  242,  418. 

Zendera  (Fernandez  Zendera), 
Francisco,  residencia  of,  152- 
155. 


[479] 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


LIBRARY  USE    NJ 

)V  09870  66 

fiaroLD   NOV 

970-7PM65 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

LD  62A-30m-2,'69 
(J6534slO)9412A — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


NON-CIRCULATING  BOOK 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


-  •   *  :"*•    * »  . 
.,»«••        «~r »-  *  •. 

.'.   •   i  , 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


